PEOPLE V BARDAJE armed with bolos, drinking and guarding her.
armed with bolos, drinking and guarding her. That evening, Bardaje had sex with her
Real/Object and Demonstrative Evidence | Aug 29, 1980 | Melencio-Herrera, J.
Digest maker: KC Nicolas
SUMMARY: Marcelina alleged that she was raped by Bardaje, first time in a hut in a
mountain, and the second time in Ceferinos house. Accused admitted having sex with
complainant but denied having raped her. He alleged that they were sweethearts and that
they decided to elope. 2 police officers, accompanied by Marcelinas father, apprehended
Bardaje for having kidnapped Marcelina. 3 days later, Marcelina submitted to a medical
examination where it was found: no evidence of external injuries around vulva or any part
of body; hymen no intact presence of old healed laceration. RTC found Bardaje GUILTY of
Forcible Abduction with Rape with aggravating circumstances of dwelling and aid of
armed men, and sentenced him to DEATH. Prosecutions version of the incident more
worthy of credence stating that Complainant had no improper motive to implicate Bardaje
in such a detestable crime as Rape. SC reversed and acquitted Bardaje. In crimes against
chastity, the conviction or acquittal of an accused depends almost entirely on the credibility
of a complainants testimony since by the intrinsic nature of those crimes they usually
involve only two personsthe complainant and the accused. The offended partys
testimony, therefore, must be subjected to thorough scrutiny for a determination of its
veracity beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, we find the charge that she was
forcibly abducted and afterwards raped by Bardaje in conspiracy with 5 others highly
dubious and inherently improbable. RTC shouldve asked witnesses crucial questions.
DOCTRINE: Marcelina could had been examined on the two matters mentioned above,
with the Court excluding the public from the hearing under the provisions of Rule 119,
Section 14. (now Rule 135, Section 2)1 She might have testified without feeling the pressure
of her relatives or other persons, if such pressure had in fact existed.
FACTS:
Accused Adelino Bardaje in this case, after trial, has been convicted of Forcible Abduction
with Rape, and sentenced to death. The case is before us on automatic review.
Marcelina Cuizons version, 14 years of age:
Dec 65: she and her mother were living in the house of her aunt, Sofia Fernandez, at
Barrio Crossing, Sta Rita, Samar, where she worked as a beautician.
14 Dec, 7pm: while she was eating supper, Bardaje, whom she knew when they were still
small, and who was her classmate in Grade II, accompanied by the five others (Lucio
Malate, Pedro Odal, Adriano Odal, Silvino Odal, and Fidel Ansuas), entered the house
and began drinking sho hoc tong. After consuming it, Silvino Odal broke the kerosene
lamp causing complete darkness.
She ran to her mother but the men followed her and tried to extricate her from her
mothers embrace. They dragged both of them to the sala.
Pedro Odal choked the mother thereby loosening her hold on Marcelina. The others, two
of whom were armed with bolos, forced her downstairs and brought her to the mountain
about 2km from Barrio Crossing (around 12mn)
On the way, Bardaje slapped her rendering her unconscious. She regained consciousness
in a hut, with Bardaje holding her hands, and removing her panty. She bit and kicked
him. Despite her struggle, Bardaje succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her while
his other companions stayed outside on guard.
Cross-exam: Marcelina declared that she didnt know who owned the hut and that it was
just a one-room affair where a woman and two small children lived; that she and
Appellant slept in that same room as the woman, while the five others slept near the
kitchen
15 Dec, 8am: Accused brought her to another mountain, 6km farther, where they arrived
past 12nn at the house of Ceferino (Cipriano). Along were Pedro, Adriano, and Fidel, still
even though she bit and kicked him and shouted for help but to no avail because
everyone there were his relatives. (Adelino called Ceferino tatay)
o Cross-exam: Complainant admitted that Ceferino, his wife and 7 children were
living there
16 Dec: She curled the hair of Ceferinos daughter, Narita, because Bardaje threatened to
kill her if she didnt. She and her captors stayed in Ceferinos house for 2 days
17 Dec: two soldiers with her father, Alejo Cuizon, arrived. The soldiers apprehended
Bardaje while the 5 others jumped down the window and fled. She embraced her father
and cried. They all returned to Barrio Crossing.
20 Dec: filed a complaint at Fiscals Office and submitted to a med exam at Samar
Provincial Hospital
o Dr Hobayan Jr: no evidence of external injuries around vulva or any part of body;
hymen no intact presence of old healed laceration (laceration may have been
caused by possible sex or other factors. If sex, he estimated it couldve occurred 2
weeks or one monther or more), vaginal smear negative for spermatozoa
Accuseds version, 18 years of age:
Admitted having sex with complainant but denied having raped her. Alleged that they
were sweethearts since November 12, 1964 and decided to elope. The 2 of them event
went to Tacloban where they had sex
14 Dec: While her mother was eating, Marcelina handed him a bag and beauty culture
equipment through the window went downstairs, after which the two of them walked to
the mountains, to Ceferinos house (cousin of accuseds mother) He and MARCELINA
slept in the bedroom with 18-year old Narita, Ceferinos daughter. While in that hut food
was brought to them by his sister, Nenita. Marcelina curled Naritas hair the next day
o Ceferino, 60, corroborated their stay in his house and added that Marcelina and
Bardaje told him they had eloped; that she offered to curl his daughters har and
helped in house chors and in threshing of palay
17 Dec: 2 police officers (Terado and Gacelos) accompanied by Marcelinas father
apprehended him for having kidnapped Marcelina. The latter ran to him and embraced
him and said she was to blame. He was boxed by the soldiers as instructed by father and
taken to Maulong PC Headquarters for questioning. During the investigation, he was
boxed and kicked and was forced to sign a statement implicating the 5 others as his
companions even if untrue. He did not know who attested to his statement as one
sergeant took the document elsewhere.
Facts after
21 Dec: Fiscal filed an information before the CFI accusing Bardaje of the crime of Rape
with Illegal detention. (However, there were differences between Marcelinas complaint
and Fiscals information)
o Marcelina charged him only with rape but Fiscal charged him with Rape with
Illegal Detention
o Marcelina merely alleged that she was dragged from Normas house by means of
force and intimidation and at nighttime. On the other hand the Information added
that the accused were armed with bolos
o Information included the allegation that the crime of Rape with Illegal Detention
was committed with the aggravating circumstances that it was committed in an
uninhabited place and with the aid of armed men.
Before arraignment, the Information was amended to include the allegation that
Marcelina was detained and deprived of liberty for a period of 3 days
o This could be taken into account in connection with Illegal Detention but not in
connection with Forcible Abduction.
 o BUT it cannot be correctly pleaded that Marcelina was deprived of liberty for 3 days
since according to Exhibit "C" (confession), Marcelina was kidnapped at midnight of
December 14th, and Bardaje was arrested in the morning of December 17th, or an
interval of less than 72 Hours.
26 July: Bardajes lawyer submitted his memorandum which argued that prosecution did
not establish the elements of Rape and Illegal Detention as prescribed.
27 July: Fiscals memorandum was submitted that the crime which should be imputed to
Bardaje is Rape with Forcible Abduction.
o Although the information is for Rape with Illegal Detention instead of Rape with
Forcible Abduction, yet from the body of the information it could be clearly gleaned
that the elements of abduction are sufficiently alleged therein and hence the accused
can be convicted thereunder.
RTC| GUILTY of Forcible Abduction with Rape with aggravating circumstances of
dwelling and aid of armed men, and sentenced him to DEATH.
o Prosecutions version of the incident more worthy of credence stating that
Complainant had no improper motive to implicate Bardaje in such a detestable
crime as Rape.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
WON the evidence, testimonial and documentary, establishes Bardajes guilt beyond
reasonable doubt? NO
In crimes against chastity, the conviction or acquittal of an accused depends almost
entirely on the credibility of a complainants testimony since by the intrinsic nature of
those crimes they usually involve only two personsthe complainant and the accused.
The offended partys testimony, therefore, must be subjected to thorough scrutiny for a
determination of its veracity beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, we find the
charge that she was forcibly abducted and afterwards raped by Bardaje in conspiracy
with 5 others highly dubious and inherently improbable.
o Medical findings:
No evidence of external injuries found around vulva or any part of the body
strange fact considering that she was allegedly dragged, slapped into
consciousness, wrestled with and criminally abused. Physical evidence is of the
highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together.
Finding of old healed lacerations in hymen which according to examining
physician would have occurred two weeks or even one month before if said
lacerations had been caused by sexual intercourse. This expert opinion
bolsters the defense that they had previous amorous relations at the same time
that it casts serious doubts on the charge of intercourse by force and
intimidation.
o Complainants own admission on the one-room (first hut was a small one-room
affair occupied by a woman and 2 children Her charge therefore, that she was
ravished in that room is highly improbable and contrary to human experience
o From her own lips, she testified that Ceferinos hut consisted of a small room
separated from the sala by a wall of split bamboo; that his family lives there It
challenges human credulity that she could have been sexually abused with so many
within hearing and distance. With people around, and the hut constructed as it was,
it would have been an easy matter for Marcelina have shouted and cried for help.
Surely, the old man Ceferino, his wife and/or his children could not have been
insensible to her outcries notwithstanding their relationship to Bardaje. The
aphorism still rings true that evidence to be believed must not only come from
the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself.
It is unbelievable, too, that under those circumstances the 5 others could have
stood guard outside, armed with bolos and drinking, while Bardaje allegedly
took advantage of her.
If rape were, indeed, their malevolent intent, they would, in all probability, have
taken turns in abusing her. That they did not, indicates that there was, indeed,
some special relationship between Bardaje and Marcelina.
o Admitted that she curled hair of Narita Fact inconsistent with her allegation of
captivity. The livelihood is that, as the defense maintains, Marcelina was not
forcibly abducted but that she and Bardaje had, in fact, eloped and that she had
brought her beauty culture paraphernalia with her, or, that she herself had sent for
them from her cousin Norma Fernandez voluntarily and not under threat from
Bardaje.
o Alleged confission of Bardaje an extrajudicial confession made by an accused
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti
Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime
prosecuted had been committed. That proof has not been met in the case at bar,
the evidence establishing more of an elopement rather than kidnapping or
illegal detention or forcible abduction, and much less rape. Moreover, Bardage,
aged 18, was by himself when being investigated by soldiers, without benefit of
counsel nor of anyone to advise him of his rights.
Aside from his declaration that his confession was obtained through
maltreatment and violence, it was also vitiated by a procedural irregularity
testified to by no less than prosecution witness Sgt. Pedro Gacelos to the effect
that he and Courts room after he presented the statement to the Clerk of
Court, Mr Rojas. There is reason to believe, therefore, that the so-called
confession was attested without ADELINOs precence so that the latter cannot
be said to have duly subscribed and sworn to it
The totality of the foregoing circumstances count with such great weight and significance
that they lend an aura of improbability and reasonable doubt to the allegation that she
had been "kidnapped" or "illegally detained" and that when she and Bardaje engaged in
sexual intercourse, it was because of force or intimidation exercised upon her. They are
circumstances that were overlooked by the trial Court and justify a reversal of its finding
of guilt as an exception to the established rule that the findings of fact of a trial Judge
based on the relative credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be
disturbed by appellate Courts.
WON Bardaje can be held liable for the crime Rape with forcible abduction when the
information only alleged rape with illegal detention? Under the circumstances, NO.
While it is true that an accused can be punished for a crime described by the facts alleged
in the Information despite a wrong designation of the crime in the preamble of the
Information, yet, in capital cases, it should be desirable that, whenever a discrepancy is
noted between the designation of the crime made by the Fiscal and the crime described by
the facts pleaded in his Information, the lower Court should call attention of the accused
to the discrepancy, so that the accused may be fully apprised of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.
The requirement that lower court should call his attention was not done in regards to
Bardaje who all the time was under the impression that he was being tried for Rape with
Illegal Detention, and not for Forcible Abduction with Rape.
If he had known that he was being tried for Forcible Abduction with Rape, he may have
changed the strategy or tactics of his defense. Not that it could be said he would have
done so; but he should have been advised he had the right, and given the opportunity, to
do so.
WON the right of an accused "to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses on his behalf was observed? NO
 Bardaje stated that: while she was in the house of Ceferino, she curled the hair of Narita as
well as the hair of other girls in the vicinity. Bardaje wanted to have Narita testity on his
behalf and a subpoena had been issued to her. But instead of taking effective steps to have
Narita brought to Court, the lower court gave responsibility for Naritas attendance to the
defense, expressly stating that, if the defense was not able to bring her to the Court, her
testimony will be dispensed with
Considering that this case involved a prosecution for a capital offense, the lower Court
acted precipitously in not having Narita brought to Court, by ordering her arrest if
necessary

WoN crucial questions shouldve been asked by the trial court of witnesses Marcelina
testified before the lower court YES
PC Sgt Gacelos who investigated the complaint against Bardaje testified that investigation
was reduced to writing would have been advisable if the lower Court had right then
and there asked for the production of the written statement of Marcelina.
The medical report implied that Marcelina had sex prior to December 14. Bardaje testified
that he and Marcelina used to go to Tacloban and had sex there several times because she
likes it. Considering the possible infliction of the death penalty, the lower Court could
have asked her if she had had sex prior to December 14th and, if so, if it was with Bardaje.
There was the possibility that they had really been sweethearts. The lower Court could
have asked her if she realized that, charging Bardaje with Rape with Illegal Detention, the
latter could be sentenced to death. If that had been explained to her clearly by the lower
Court, she might then have admitted that she was neither raped nor "kidnapped" nor
illegally detained.
She could had been examined on the two matters mentioned above, with the Court
excluding the public from the hearing under the provisions of Rule 119, Section 14. She
might have testified without feeling the pressure of her relatives or other persons, if
such pressure had in fact existed.

It may not be amiss to state then that just as in pleas of guilty where a grave offense is
charged trial Judges have been enjoined to refrain from accepting them with alacrity but to be
extra solicitous in seeing to it that an accused fully understands the import of his plea, so also,
in prosecutions for capital offenses, it behooves the trial Courts to exercise greater care in
safeguarding the rights of an accused. The trial Judge should also take a more active role by
means of searching questions in the examination of witnesses for the ascertaintment of the
truth and credibility of their testimonies so that any judgment of conviction imposing the
supreme penalty may rest on firm and unequivocal grounds. The life and liberty of an
individual demand no less.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, upon reasonable doubt, the judgment appealed from,
imposing the death penalty, is reversed and the appellant, Adelino Bardaje, acquitted of the crime with
which he is charged. His immediate release is ordered unless he is held on other charges.