By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
Magdalena “Maggie” de la Maggie Dela Riva was born to Pilar Torrente, a Spanish mestiza, and Juan de la Riva, a German-Swiss. In 1963, she was one of the top five finalists for the beauty pageant ‘’Miss Caltex of 1963’’. That year, she also represented Filipino gowns for the ‘’Fashion Guild of the Philippines’’ under the designer “Millie’s Gowns”. In 1964, she was hired as a brand endorser for “Respect the Centavo,” a savings advertisement.
In 1963, she first appeared with Joseph Estrada in the movie “Istambay.” In 1967, she starred in the movie “Ang Langit Ay Para Sa Lahat,” which she considers her best work. She was a singer and performed in the leading night clubs in Manila at that time. She had her own TV show titled “Maggie” on Channel 3. She was a guest artist in “Tanghalan sa Darigold” on Channel 11 and a recurring guest in “Tindahan sa Nayon” in the same channel.
Maggie’s father died early. She became the sole breadwinner of the family.
In 1967, the Supreme Court, in en banc decision in the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, ET AL., (G. R. No. L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971), defendants-appellants, wrote that Maggie was “25 years old and single; she graduated from high school in 1958 at the Maryknoll College and finished the secretarial course in 1960 at St. Theresa’s College. Movie actress by profession, she was receiving P8,000 per picture. It was part of her work to perform in radio broadcasts and television shows, where she was paid P800.00 per month in permanent shows, P300.00 per month in live promotional shows, and from P100.00 to P200.00 per appearance as guests in other shows.”
“So it was that at around 4:30 o’clock in the morning of June 26, 1967,” while driving her car from Roxas Boulevard to her home in Quezon City with her maid, a Pontiac two-door convertible blocked her car near the gate of her house. A man got out, pulled her out and dragged her into the convertible. She was forced to sit between 2 men at the back seat, who groped her. They went to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City. Blindfolded, they brought her from the car to a room. She was told: “Magburlesque ka para sa amin.” She ignored this. They forcibly undressed her. Then, they left the room. After a while, Jaime Jose returned and raped her. Afterwards, Edgardo Aquino had his turn, and, after him, Basilio Pineda and then Rogelio Canal. When she blacked out, they poured water into her face and slapped her in order to revive her. When she resisted, they cursed her, threatened to throw acid in her face, and hit her in different parts of her body.
“After x x x the sexual carnage”, she was made to dress up and to fix herself. Then, they brought her down to the car blindfolded, and left her near EDSA, where she got a cab.
“It was 6:30 o’clock – or some two hours after the abduction – when Miss De la Riva reached home. x x x. “Mommy, mommy, I have been raped. All four of them raped me.” Maggie “immediately took a bath and a douche.” On June 29, 1967, Maggie filed a complaint with the police and executed a statement, narrating her ordeal. She then underwent a medico-internal examination.
In a span of a week, the 4 were arrested. Jaime Jose was the first to fall in the morning of June 29, 1967 in Buendia, Makati, followed by Basilio Pineda and Rogelio Canal in Lipa City on July 1. Finally, Edgardo Aquino surrendered to the wife of the Batangas governor on July 5.
A complaint for rape was thereafter filed against the 4 as principals and against 3 others as accomplices. Upon arraignment, accused Pineda pleaded guilty, but the trial court reserved judgment “until such time as the prosecution shall have concluded presenting all of its evidence to prove the aggravating circumstances listed in the complaint.” Trial proceeded and on Oct. 2, 1967, the trial court rendered judgment, finding “the accused Jaime Jose, Rogelio Canal, Eduardo Aquino and Basilio Pineda, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape x x x, and hereby sentences each of them to the death penalty x x x. On the ground that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accomplices x x x, the Motion to Dismiss filed for and in their behalf is hereby granted, and the case dismissed against the aforementioned accused.”
Accused Jose, Pineda and Aquino appealed to the Supreme Court. The case against Canal was elevated to the Court on automatic appeal.
“The striptease-act-for-a-fee story,” said the Supreme Court, “on which the defense theory is anchored, defies one’s credulity and reason, x x x.” It quoted with approval the decision of the trial judge. Thus, “(a)s main defense x x x, the three accused advance the proposition that nothing happened in Swanky Hotel except for a strip-tease” which Maggie agreed to do for “P1,000, with a P100.00 down and the balance to be paid ‘later.’ The Court cannot believe that any woman exists, even one habitual engaged in this kind of entertainment (which Maggie de la Riva has not been proven to be) who would consent (and as easily and promptly as defense claims) to do a performance, not even for all the money in the words after the rough handling she experienced x x x.” x x x. Besides. The manner of payment offered for the performance is again something beyond even the wildest expectations. x x x. Since when are exposition(s) of the flesh paid on installment basis? By the very precautious nature of their pitiful calling, women who sell their attractions are usually very shrewd and it is expected that they could demand full payment before curtain call. x x x. Finally, it is odd that not one of these men should have mentioned (these) circumstances during their interview with anyone, x x x, One cannot escape the very strong suspicion that this story is a last ditch, desperate attempt to save the day for the accused.”
Then, the Court considered the points raised by the appellants. It then stated that:
“We are convinced that the herein appellants have conspired together to commit the crimes imputed to them in the amended information quoted at the beginning of this decision. There is no doubt at all that the forcible abduction of the complainant from in front her house in Quezon City, was a necessary if not dispensable means which enabled them to commit the various and the successive acts of rape upon her person. It bears noting, however, that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the three succeeding crimes of the same nature can not legally be considered as still connected with the abduction – in other words, they should be detached therefrom, and considered independently of, that of forcible abduction and, therefor, the former can no longer be complexed with the latter.”
The Court then concluded that:
“We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the existence of conspiracy among them and our finding as regards the nature and number of the crimes committed, as well as of the presence of aggravating circumstances, four death penalties should be imposed in the premises.”
Rogelio Canal died in prison in 1971, allegedly from a drug overdose. Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda and Edgardo Aquino were executed by electric chair on May 17, 1972. The actual proceedings were broadcast live on national radio.
The mother of Jaime Jose made a personal appeal to President Marcos. It was declined due to the sensational public anger at that time. Edgardo Aquino appeared to be repentant in the group, and showed remorse for his actions. A prison chaplain and a doctor stated that they heard his last words: “Avoid bad companions and obey your parents.”
In 1994, the film “The Maggie de la Riva Story” was released starring Dawn Zulueta as “Maggie” and the late Miguel Rodriguez as “Jaime Jose”.
On March 6, 2017, Maggie was reported to have stated that the death penalty should still be part of the law of the land. I daresay that she would have said that ”ang langit ay hindi para sa lahat!”
Now, in his 5th SONA last July 27, 2020, Pres. Duterte called for the reimposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes. He has started the great debate, on whether or not to bring back the supreme penalty of death.
And you, my dear Reader, what do you say?
