ADVISORY: |
The Supreme Court E-Library will undergo a system
maintenance on March 28-31, 2024 and will be inaccessible during this period. Thank you for your understanding! |
CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
350 Phil. 208
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 123803, February 26, 1998 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PASTOR JERUSALEM MEDEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
Appellant Jerusalem
Medel seeks to reverse the Decision[1] of the trial court, dated October
4, 1995, finding him guilty of raping complainant Axel Rose Rula.[2]
The complainant
and the appellant were members of the Student Missionary Outreach (SMO), a
Christian organization conducting bible studies in different schools and
universities. At the time of the
incident, complainant was the national treasurer of SMO while appellant
was the Officer-in-Charge and member of the SMO Board of Trustees. Complainant was twenty five (25) years old,
unmarried and had a boyfriend, Orly. Appellant, on the other hand, was thirty (30) years old and married to
Dinah Medel, a physician, with whom he has two children.[3]
There is no
question that appellant and complainant had coitus at Veny's Inn in Baguio City
on November 9, 1993. The issue is
whether appellant forced the complainant to have sex or whether they engaged in
consensual sexual intercourse.
The prosecution
evidence show that on November 7, 1993, appellant, complainant, and Reverend Alejo Calopes,[4] went to Tadian, Mountain Province,
to resolve a conflict involving two (2) members of their organization. They took the 11:00 p.m. bus and arrived in Baguio at 5:00 a.m. the following
day. They boarded another bus bound for
Tadian which they reached at 4:00 p.m. They met with the members of their organization and successfully settled
their dispute.[5]
The next day,
November 9, at about 7:30 a.m., appellant, complainant, and Rev. Calopes headed back to Baguio
City. They reached Baguio at about 4:00
p.m. Appellant suggested that they roam
around the city and buy some "pasalubong" before going
home. Complainant agreed as it was her
first time in Baguio. Rev. Calopes
begged off for he had to attend to important matters. He took the 4:30 p.m. trip to Manila.[6]
After Rev.
Calopes left, appellant told complainant that their trip to Manila would be at
11:00 p.m. They inquired from an employee at the bus station if they could
temporarily leave their things for safekeeping. They were told that the bus
company would not take any responsibility for lost baggage. Appellant then suggested that they deposit
their things in a lodging house. Complainant rejected the suggestion. She said: "Pastor, ayoko po sa ganyang lugar, hindi po magandang
tingnan, Kristiyano pa naman tayo." To allay her fears, he replied: "Huwag kang mag-alala, at
bakit tayo magi-guilty? Basta alam
nating wala naman tayong ginagawang masama, hindi tayo dapat mahiya." In jest, he said he had no plan to rape her.[7]
Appellant and
complainant checked in at Veny's Inn along Session Road at about 5:45 p.m.
Complainant registered her name on the registry book on appellant's
instruction. They kept their belongings
in their room. After a while, they
proceeded to the public market and bought "pasalubong." They also went sight-seeing, took pictures
and, later in the evening, dined in a restaurant. All those times, appellant did not convey any evil desire towards
complainant.[8]
At about 8:30
p.m., they returned to Veny's Inn. Their room was small -- it had only a bed, a table and a small private
bathroom. Complainant sat on the bed to rest. She stayed
awake for their 11:00 p.m. trip. Appellant refreshed himself by taking a shower.[9]
At about 9:20
p.m., appellant emerged from the bathroom clad in brief. He then told her: "Alam mo, noong
una palang, crush na kita, matagal na kitang gustong maangkin." She was stunned as he continued saying:
"Kapag nakikita kita, palagi akong nag we-wet dreams."
Finally, complainant was able to retort: "Ang bastos-bastos mo. Pastor ka pa naman." She walked towards the door but appellant
locked it. He grabbed her upper arms
and laid her down on the bed. She
struggled as she pled: "Huwag, ayoko, maawa ka." Appellant sat on her belly, choked her with
his right hand and delivered a strong blow on her left shoulder. He kissed her on the face, lips and neck and
then forcibly took off her pants and underwear. The pants' zipper was torn in the process. They wrestled for an hour before he managed
to subdue her. She felt excruciating pain
when he penetrated her. He was done in
fifteen (15) minutes.[10]
Complainant
picked up her pants and underwear and went to the bathroom. She cried but could not shout due to
exhaustion. When she came out of the
bathroom, appellant threatened her with death if she would reveal the incident.
At about 10:45
p.m., complainant and appellant checked out of Veny's Inn. They proceeded to the bus terminal. Complainant cried throughout the trip.[11] She was again warned not to tell
anyone of the incident because nobody would listen to her. Appellant boasted that their congregation
would believe whatever he would tell them. He also showed her a military badge and bragged about his "connections"
in the military. The threats cowed her
into silence.[12]
Since then, complainant
started to avoid the appellant. Allegedly, she would hurriedly fix her things and leave when she sensed
she was left alone in the office with appellant. However, on four (4) occasions, appellant obliged her to go to
his house because his wife, Dr. Dinah Medel,[13] would give her vaccines for
Hepatitis B.[14]
Complainant's
first visit to Dr. Medel happened on November 18, 1993, nine (9) days after the
rape. On said date, appellant
accompanied her to his house. Complainant's next visits to Dr. Medel took place on December 9, 1993,
January 18, 1994 and February 17, 1994.[15]
On March 29,
1994, complainant was at the SMO office doing some paper work. She found herself alone in the office with
appellant. When appellant closed the door, she hid under her table. Appellant forced her out and said: "Huwag
kang tatanggi, sandali lang ito." He then molested her for about fifteen (15) minutes.[16]
On April 11-14,
1994, the SMO held a convention in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. Complainant's
boyfriend, Orly, accompanied her to avert appellant's advances. Appellant, however, told complainant that
the other pastors were displeased by her boyfriend's presence and they would
discuss the matter with her. He warned
her not to reveal the Baguio incident,
otherwise, he would throw her in a cliff.[17]
One week after
the convention, complainant decided to relate her misfortune to her aunt,
Gloria Trayco.
Gloria Trayco[18] s also a missionary at the
SMO. She testified that complainant's
eyes were swollen when she came home from Baguio in the early morning of
November 10, 1993. She thought
complainant was just tired from her trip so she left her in her room to rest.
Gloria sorted out complainant's dirty clothes for laundry and saw blood stains
on her pants and underwear. Complainant
attributed them to her menstrual period. Gloria washed complainant's clothes but the blood stains appeared redder
than usual. She returned to
complainant's room and found her crying. Complainant was hiding her face under a pillow. Gloria took the pillow and noticed a
hematoma on her left shoulder. Complainant claimed that the hematoma was due to a bad fall in
Baguio. Gloria did not discuss the
issue any further.[19]
Gloria noted
that complainant's behavior changed after her trip to Baguio. She was no longer jolly. Her zest to work at the SMO vanished. Nonetheless, she just let things be in view
of complainant's refusal to open up to her.[20]
On April 22,
1994, Gloria persuaded complainant to
report to the SMO office because she had been absent for two (2) consecutive
days. When complainant refused, she
repeatedly asked her why she did not want to work. Complainant then tearfully revealed that she had been raped by
appellant. The following day, they
reported the rape to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila.[21]
Complainant was
medically examined by NBI Medico-Legal Officer Aurea Villena. Dr. Villena found an "old-healed
complete hymenal laceration" on complainant's genitalia. The laceration was approximately more than
three (3) months old. She opined that the age of the laceration was consistent
with the date of the rape.[22]
Complainant's
close friend and co-worker Mirasol Valdez also testified for the prosecution. Mirasol lives with complainant and Gloria at the SMO staff house
in Cavite. She declared that Dr. Dinah
Medel visited them in the staff house and tried but failed to convince
complainant to withdraw the rape case against appellant. When Dr. Medel came a third time, complainant did not give her an audience. Dr. Medel then requested Mirasol and Gloria to help her talk to
complainant for her children's sake. Complainant was unbending.[23]
Appellant denied
the charge. He claimed that complainant developed a crush on him when she saw
him in his office in Taytay in 1988. In
1992, he became the secretary general
of SMO and transferred to its national
office in Quezon City where complainant was working as its national treasurer.
He was temporarily designated as officer-in-charge of SMO later that year when its national director travelled
abroad. Appellant's transfer to the national office brought him closer to
complainant. She confided to him her
personal problems, including her sexual adventures with a former boyfriend,
Rolly. They took turns in paying the
bills whenever they go out to eat. She
also gifted him a desk calendar.[24]
On November 7,
1993, appellant and Reverend Calopes
were to go to Tadian, Mountain Province, for a mission trip. Complainant volunteered to join them when
she learned that they would pass by Baguio City. Appellant
told complainant that they could not accommodate her due to their limited
budget. Complainant offered to pay her
fare so she was able to join the trip.[25]
Their mission to
Tadian was successful. On November 9,
at about 7:30 a.m., they headed back to Baguio City. The bus arrived in Baguio at about 4:30 p.m. Rev. Calopes left the duo and took the 5:00 p.m. trip to Manila. As it was complainant's first time in
Baguio, complainant and appellant decided to stay in the city for a few more
hours. They bought tickets for the
11:00 p.m. trip to Manila.[26]
Appellant and
complainant strolled along Session Road. Complainant asked if they could leave their luggage in a lodging
house. They passed by Veny's Inn and
inquired for its short time rate, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. They were informed that the inn had only
whole day rates. Appellant then told
complainant that the rate was high and
it was impractical for them to get a
room. Complainant, however, volunteered to take care of the payment. She registered
her name on the registry book, took the key from the receptionist and handed it
over to appellant. After putting their belongings in the room, they went to the
public market. They bought vegetables,
fruits and brooms. At about 7:00 p.m.,
they returned to Veny's Inn for a brief rest.[27]
That evening,
complainant and appellant dined in a restaurant across Burnham Park. They then strolled, exchanged jokes, and soon were holding
hands. They decided to see a
movie. They engaged in kissing, necking
and petting inside the movie house. They returned to Veny's Inn and had sex for about fifteen (15) or twenty
(20) minutes. They rested for some
minutes and had sex a second time. During that brief rest, complainant confessed that she had gone to a
motel before with a former boyfriend
named Rolly. She even described the
motel's room.[28]
At about 9:30
p.m., complainant and appellant checked out of Veny's Inn and went to the bus
terminal. Complainant stayed at the bus
station to look after their luggage while
appellant sauntered within the vicinity. He watched a televised PBA basketball game in a nearby store. They took the 11:00 p.m. trip to Manila. They slept and barely talked to each other
throughout the trip.[29]
Complainant and
appellant's relationship became more intimate after their trip to Baguio. On
one occasion, complainant invited appellant to a lunch date. Thereafter, they went to Delta Theater where they engaged in kissing,
necking and petting. They repeated it several days later.[30]
Complainant also
went to appellant's house four (4) times because his wife, Dr. Dinah Medel,
gave her vaccines for Hepatitis B. She
was accompanied by appellant on her first two visits on November 18, 1993 and
December 9, 1993. They came ahead of
Dr. Medel and she helped prepare the lunch. Dr. Medel and their children came at past twelve. Complainant ate lunch with the family and
washed the dishes.[31]
In December,
1993, the SMO held a Christmas party at their office. Complainant served food and refreshment on appellant and the
other guests. She gave him a planner
calendar.
On another
occasion, appellant brought his wife's electric fan to the SMO office. Complainant borrowed the electric fan from
him and used it.[32]
On January 6,
1994, complainant and appellant had lunch at McDonald's in Monumento. They proceeded to Sunshine Lodge
afterwards. They had sex two (2) times
that afternoon. While resting,
complainant spoke about her new boyfriend, Orly. She confessed that she went to bed with Orly three (3) days after she became his
girlfriend.[33]
During the
Bukidnon convention on April 11-14, 1994, Orly accompanied complainant. The members of the SMO Board of Trustees were displeased by his
presence. They asked appellant to
discuss the problem with complainant. Appellant relayed the board's sentiment
to complainant. He also ended their
illicit affair as he and his family would settle down in Cagayan de Oro City.[34]
After the
convention, appellant received reports from their office secretary and Rev.
Clacio that complainant and Orly were
always in their office. He scolded complainant.[35] She did not report for work for two
days. Appellant learned later that
Orly, complainant and Ms. Trayco were
looking for him. They appeared furious. Appellant was advised by Rev. Clacio to avoid the office.
After a few
days, appellant reported to the office and he found his things stored up in a
box placed atop the desk of a security guard. He could not enter their office as its lock had been changed. A note at the door stated that their
national director ordered its temporary closure.
On May 1, 1994,
an SMO worker informed appellant that Ms. Trayco reported to a group of SMO
missionaries that he had sexually abused complainant. He went into hiding when he was told that NBI agents would arrest
him. He met with other pastors and
members of Valenzuela Gospel Church to seek a meeting with Ms. Trayco and
complainant. Their efforts were
unsuccessful.[36] He was dismissed from the SMO Board
of Trustees.[37]
Dr. Dinah Medel,
wife of appellant, also testified for the defense. She declared that after appellant's trip to Tadian, she went to
the SMO office and offered to examine its members for Hepatitis B. Complainant availed of her offer. They agreed to meet at Dr. Medel's house for
her blood test and vaccination.
Complainant's
first visit to the Medels was on November 18, 1993. When Dr. Medel came home for lunch, complainant was already
inside the house talking to appellant. There was nothing unusual in their behavior as they lunched
together. After lunch, Dr. Medel took
blood samples from complainant who was wearing a collarless short sleeved
blouse. Dr. Medel did not see any hematoma
or bruise on complainant's upper arm or neck.[38]
After Dr. Medel
received the results of the blood test, she asked appellant to inform
complainant that she could have the Hepatitis B vaccine in their (Medels')
house. Thus, on December 9, 1993,
complainant saw Dr. Medel for her first injection. Again, complainant and
appellant were already inside the house when Dr. Medel arrived from work. They ate lunch together and thereafter,
complainant washed the dishes. Dr.
Medel gave complainant her first shot. Dr. Medel then requested
complainant to sell some pieces of jewelry from Bangkok. Complainant gladly agreed.[39]
Complainant's
next visit to Dr. Medel was on January 18, 1994. Again, appellant and complainant were already inside the house
when Dr. Medel came from work. Complainant assisted the Medels in preparing their lunch. Dr. Medel
teased complainant about her weight. Complainant answered that someone is making her healthy.
On February 17,
1994, complainant received her last vaccine shot from Dr. Medel. When Dr. Medel arrived home, she found
complainant alone in their house. Appellant had entrusted the key to
complainant as he could not accompany her. Complainant surrendered the key to Dr. Medel.[40]
Dr. Medel
confirmed that during the SMO's
Christmas party in December 1993, complainant served food on her and appellant.
Complainant also gave appellant a desk calendar.[41]
In March 1994,
Dr. Medel dropped by the SMO office. She saw her electric fan on complainant's table. Appellant explained to
her that complainant borrowed it from him. Dr. Medel noticed complainant and her husband exchanging glances. On another occasion, she found cassette
tapes in their house. Appellant claimed the tapes belonged to complainant.[42]
On May 17, 1994,
the day before the Medels were to go to Cagayan De Oro, Dr. Medel learned from Rev. Clacio that complainant wanted to talk to her.
Without her husband's knowledge, Dr. Medel met with complainant at the SMO
staff house in Cavite. Dr. Medel was presented complainant's
affidavit/complaint against appellant. Dr. Medel confronted appellant in their house. They had a heated argument before appellant admitted his liaison
with complainant.[43]
Dr. Medel tried
to convince complainant to withdraw the rape case against appellant but to no
avail. She asked prosecution witnesses
Valdez and Trayco to help her persuade complainant not to proceed with the
case. They told Dr. Medel that it would be difficult to talk
to complainant about the case.[44]
Araceli Cueto, a
volunteer worker at SMO, testified that she attended the SMO's Christmas party
in December, 1993. She confirmed that
complainant served food and refreshments to appellant and his companions.[45]
In February,
1994, Araceli and her boyfriend went to
the SMO office and saw a note posted at the door stating that appellant and
complainant would be back at 2:30 p.m. When they were about to leave, they
encountered appellant and complainant at the lobby. The two told them that they ate lunch and bought groceries
together.[46]
Araceli also
attended the Bukidnon convention. She
and complainant stayed in one room. On
April 12, 1994, at about lunch time, she saw complainant crying in their room. Complainant told her that the board members would talk to her
about her boyfriend. Complainant
threatened that if they push her against the wall, she would implicate
appellant. Asked what she meant,
complainant answered: "Huwag na lang, ate."[47]
Reverend Noel
Clacio also testified for the defense. Sometime in February or March, 1994, he had lunch with appellant and
complainant at Cabalen Restaurant in West Avenue, Quezon City. She exchanged jokes with them and paid the bill. Clacio did not sense any
feeling of intimacy between appellant and complainant. He described their
relationship as business-like.
In March, 1994,
Clacio and complainant dined at Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) along North EDSA,
Quezon City. Complainant told him that
KFC is her favorite place because she and appellant also dine in said fastfood
chain.[48]
Rev. Clacio
confirmed that some pastors disliked seeing complainant with her boyfriend
during the SMO convention in Bukidnon in 1994. They asked appellant to inform
complainant about her indiscretion.[49]
On the basis of
the evidence, the trial court convicted appellant. In this appeal, appellant contends:
"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; and
"II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES IN REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN A PROSECUTION FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE AS CITED IN ITS DECISION REITERATING THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS. CALIXTO (277 SCRA 33);"
We acquit the
appellant.
The key issue is
whether appellant used force and intimidation in having sex with the
complainant. To prove force and intimidation complainant testified as follows:[50]
"ATTY. BERNABE:
"Q: At the time that you were about to stand up and Pastor Medel closed the door, what did you do next, if any?
"(RULA):
"A: He grabbed both my hands and forced me down on the bed, Ma'am.
"Q: What happened next, if any?
"A: When I struggled to free from him, he suddenly held me by the neck and tried to strangle me Ma'am.
"Q: And how did you feel at that time?
"A: I was very nervous and scared, Ma'am.
"Q: And what happened while he was choking you, what else did Pastor Medel do?
"A: He tried to open my pants and punched me on the left shoulder, Ma'am.
x x x x x
x x x
x
"Q: ... what happened next, if any?
"A: He tried to pull my pants and because my feet were tired from travel and from roaming around, I developed cramps, Ma'am.
x x x x x
x x x
x
"Q: When he forced to take off your pants, what happened next, if any?
"A: Because he was sitting on top of me, he reached for my panty, Ma'am.
"Q: After Pastor Medel was able to take off your panty, what happened next, if any?
"A: And then he penetrated his penis on my vagina, Ma'am.
"Q: When he inserted his penis into your vagina, what were you doing, if any?
"A: It was very painful, I almost died and I almost lost my breath when he inserted his penis in my vagina.
"ATTORNEY BERNABE:
Your Honor, may we put on record that the victim is crying?
"COURT:
I'm observing.
(Witness is crying)
"ATTORNEY BERNABE:
"Q: May we know if the witness could still answer?
"WITNESS:
"A: Yes, Ma'am.
x x x x x
x x x
x
"Q: And what happened next, if any?
"A: Blood came out from my vagina, Ma'am.
x x x x x
x x x
x
"Q: And what did you do next, if any ?
"A: After that, I got my panty and my pants and went to the comfort room, Ma'am.
"Q: When you went to the comfort room, what was Pastor Medel doing at that time?
x x x x x
x x x
x
"A: He was taking a rest Ma'am.
"ATTY. BERNABE:
"Q: And while you were inside the comfort room, what were you doing, if any?
"A: I cried, I wanted to shout but I was not able to do it because I (was) so weak, Ma'am."
It is our ruling
case law that the testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity
should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can be easily
concocted. We exercise the greatest
degree of care and caution before giving full faith and credit to the testimony
of complainant.[51] We have not hesitated to reverse
judgments of conviction when there are strong indications pointing to the
possibility that the rape charges were false. Nor have we sustained convictions when the complainant's conduct towards her alleged offender
runs counter to human nature or appears uncharacteristic of a victim of such an
abominable act.[52]
In the case at
bar, complainant's conduct is contrary to the natural reaction of a woman
outraged and robbed of her honor.[53] Appellant was unarmed during the alleged sexual assault. Yet, during and after the rape, complainant
did not shout nor run for help. She
just picked up her pants and underwear, proceeded to the bathroom and
cried. She could have rushed to the
door after she had put her clothes on since appellant was then resting on bed
almost naked. We note that the place
where the alleged rape was committed is an inn. It would not have been difficult nor impossible for complainant
to call the attention of others to her plight. More perplexing was her silence in the bus station in Baguio while
waiting for their 11:00 p.m. trip to Manila. She could have revealed her ordeal to anyone at the said station when
appellant left her to watch a televised PBA basketball game. She was even free to go but did not.
When she arrived
home, she again remained mum. She even
made up excuses on why her pants and underwear were stained with blood and how
she got the bruise on her left shoulder. By that time, she was certainly no longer under threat by the
appellant.
Yet, this is not
all. The records show that barely nine
(9) days after the incident in Baguio, she went with appellant to his
house. She had lunch with him and his
family and even agreed to sell on a commission basis some pieces of jewelry for
appellant's wife, Dr. Medel. Complainant went to appellant's house not just once but four (4) times, quite frequent for someone who claims to have been ravished against her will. On those occasions, she
managed to keep her composure in front of appellant and his family that even
his wife did not notice anything unusual in their behavior.
The evidence
show, further, that during the SMO's Christmas party in December, 1993,
complainant acted as if nothing untoward happened between her and the
appellant. She served food and
refreshments on him and his wife. Complainant also testified:[54]
"ATTY. BERNABE:
Q: Was there an occasion, Miss witness, when you saw Pastor Medel at the office?
x x x x x
x x x
x
"WITNESS (RULA):
"A: December, during the Christmas party, Ma'am.
"Q: And how did you relate with Pastor Medel during that time?
"A: I acted normally and when we meet he always threatened me not to report what happened, Ma'am.
"Q: And was there any other occasion that you saw him?
"A: Yes, Ma'am.
"Q: How did you and Pastor Medel relate with each other?
"A: Just the same, I acted normally, Ma'am."
(emphasis ours)
Furthermore, Dr.
Medel went to the SMO office a few months after complainant was allegedly raped
by appellant. Dr. Medel saw her electric fan on complainant's office
table. By way of explanation,
complainant merely said that she did not use it and that it was appellant who
placed the electric fan on her table.
Rape is a
heinous crime which can be punished by death. It can be easily concocted and has been concocted for ignoble
purposes. In this age of
permissiveness, the virtuous Maria Claras who need only to shout rape to get a
conviction are now rare breeds. Courts
should thus be wary in according undue credulity to claims of rape especially
where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not
corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is susceptible to
different interpretations. In all prosecutions, especially prosecutions for
heinous crimes, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. Unless the presumption is overcome by
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to mandatory acquittal. In the case at bar,
the story of the complainant failed to prove that she was forced by the appellant to engage in sex. While the appellant can be condemned for
immorality, he cannot be convicted for rape.
IN VIEW
WHEREOF, the
judgment appealed from is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Appellant JERUSALEM MEDEL
is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and
his immediate release is ordered, unless there is any other valid cause for his
continued incarceration.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
Penned by Judge Antonio C. Reyes, Regional Trial Court of Baguio City
(Branch 61); Rollo, p. 19.
[2]
He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the victim P50,000.00
and to pay the cost of suit.
[3]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 4, 1994, pp. 4-6.
[4]
Also referred to as Pastor Lopez in the records. Rev. Calopes is SMO's South Luzon
Coordinator.
[5]
TSN Axel Rose Rula, October 4, 1994, pp. 5-8.
[6]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 4, 1994, pp. 9-11.
[7]
Ibid., p. 12; Ibid., October 25, 1994, pp. 3-4.
[8]
Ibid., October 25, 1994, pp. 13, 16-18.
[9]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 25, 1994, pp. 14-15.
[10]
Ibid., pp. 7, 14-15, 17-18.
[11]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 25, 1994, p. 19.
[12]
Exhibit "B".
[13]
Dr. Dinah Medel is also a member of SMO.
[14]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 25, 1994, p. 11-13;
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 25, 1994, pp. 7-8.
[17]
Ibid., pp. 18-19.
[18]
Also referred to as Gloria Trico in some parts of the records.
[19]
TSN, Gloria Trayco, October 26, 1994, pp. 3-7.
[20]
Ibid., p. 8.
[21]
Ibid., pp. 8-11. A complaint for rape was subsequently filed by
Rula before the Fiscal's Office in Baguio City.
[22]
TSN, Dr. Aurea Villena, November 7, 1994, pp. 5-7; See also Exhibit
"A".
[23]
Affidavit of Mirasol Valdez, dated October 24, 1994, Exhibit
"D".
[24]
TSN, Jerusalem Medel, May 17,
1995, pp. 4-10.
[25]
TSN, Jerusalem Medel, May 17,
1995, pp. 9-10.
[26]
Ibid., pp. 10-11.
[27]
Ibid., pp. 13-16.
[28]
TSN, Jerusalem Medel, May 17,
1995, pp. 17-20.
[29]
Ibid., pp. 20-21.
[30]
Ibid., pp. 24-25.
[31]
TSN, Jerusalem Medel, May 17,
1995, pp. 23.
[32]
Ibid., pp. 25-26, 29.
[33]
Ibid., pp. 26-27.
[34]
TSN, Jerusalem Medel, May 17,
1995, pp. 31-33.
[35]
Ibid., pp. 33-34.
[36]
Ibid., pp. 38-40; Ibid.,
May 18, 1995. p. 3.
[37]
Ibid., p. 3, 17-18.
[38]
TSN, Dr. Dinah Medel, April 20, 1995, pp. 38-40.
[39]
Ibid., pp. 45-47.
[40]
TSN, Dr. Dinah Medel, April 20, 1995, pp. 50-51.
[41]
Ibid., pp. 43-44.
[42]
Ibid., pp. 52-53.
[43]
TSN, Dr. Dinah Medel, April 20, 1995, pp. 57-61.
[44]
Ibid., pp. 62-63.
[45]
TSN, Araceli Cueto, April 27, 1995, p. 9, 12.
[46]
Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[47]
TSN, Araceli Cueto, April 27, 1995, pp. 10-11.
[48]
TSN, Noel Clacio, April 19, 1995, pp. 5-6.
[49]
Ibid., pp. 8-10.
[50]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 4, 1994, pp. 15-19.
[51]
People vs. Bawar, G.R. No. 119957, September 23, 1996, 262 SCRA
325.
[52]
People vs. Subido, G.R. No. 115004, February 5, 1996, 253 SCRA
196.
[53]
People vs. Bawar, supra.
[54]
TSN, Axel Rose Rula, October 4, 1994, pp. 22-23.