G.R. No.

L-49656 November 25, 1983

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, 

vs.
GODOFREDO QUINTAL Y SANTOS, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Rufino T. Aguilar for accused-appellant.

GUERRERO, J.: ñé+.£ªwph!1

This is a forcible abduction with rape case filed by the offended party, Carol Dumrique, then
a 17-year old coed of the College of Commerce of Ortanez University, Cubao, Quezon City,
in the criminal complaint subscribed and sworn to by her on February 3, 1977 in Manila,
Philippines before Assistant Fiscal Arturo U. Barias Jr., against her instructor in Mathematics
at said school, herein accused-appellant Godofredo Quintal y Santos, a middle-aged married
man, which reads as follows:  têñ.£îhqwâ£

The undersigned accuses GODOFREDO QUINTAL y SANTOS of the crime

of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE, committed as follows:  têñ.£îhqwâ£

That on or about the 4th day of January 1977, in the City of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there Y,
unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd designs, abduct the
undersigned complainant CAROL DUMRIQUE y MESA, by
then and there threatening to fan her in her Math 2-B subject
should she refuse to go with him, and by means of force and
intimidation, took her inside the taxi and brought her inside
the Maya Theatre of Quezon City and while inside the
threatre, administered drugged chocolate candies. On her
and then subsequently brought her to the Rose Garden Motel
where once inside the said motel with accused had carnal
know of her against her will when she was deprived of her fun
possession of her mental faculties.'

CONTRARY TO LAW.

S/t CAROL DUMRIQUE y MESA Complainant

The Assistant Fiscal having conducted an ex-parte investigation in accordance with law, filed
the corresponding information against the accused for forcible abduction with rape with the
Circuit C Court, Sixth Judicial District, Manila. Upon arraignment, the accused, duly
represented by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. Trial then proceeded and upon
termination thereof, the court rendered judgment against the accused as decreed in the
dispositive portion, to wit:  têñ.£îhqwâ£

WHEREFORE, finding the accused GODOFREDO QUINTAL guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of rape pursuant to the provisions of Article
 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended and there being no mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance to offset each other, the Court hereby imposes
upon the said accused the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to pay the
offended party the amount of P5,000.00 and the further sum of P1,000.00 as
attorney's fees and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. 1äwphï1.ñët

Manila, Philippines, October 6, 1978.

The version of the prosecution is succinctly summarized in the Appellee's Brief as follows: 
têñ.£îhqwâ£

At the time of the incident the offended party, Carol Dumrique, was a 17-
year old Commerce student at the Ortanez University in Cubao, Quezon City,
single and residing with her uncle at Provident Village, Marikina, Metro
Manila. She was then residing in the city for barely three months as she was
a transferee from the province of Isabela where her parents reside. She
came to know of the accused-appellant because the latter was her professor
in Mathematics 2-B. In fact, since November of the previous year (1976) she
has been invited no less than three times by the accused- appellant to a
merienda but she refused because she had already a boy friend who was
also studying in the same school. (pp. 6-10, 10-27, t.s.n., June 30, 1977).

At about 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of January 4, 1977, the offended party
was alone in Room 206 at the second floor of the school building reviewing
her test paper in Management when accused-appellant entered the room and
inquired from her what she was doing. After answering him, the offended
party in turn inquired from the accused-appellant the results of their
examination in his subject. The latter did not immediately answer, but
continued staring at the offended party for a long time and remarked- "Hindi
ka kasi sumasama. " As the latter did not answer, accused-appellant
continued: "You cannot do anything. All of those who are here are members
of my barkada. You will still undergo two Mathematics subjects under me.
Frightened, she consented when invited by the accused- appellant for a
merienda. (pp. 11-20, 22-24, t.s.n., lbid).

From Ortañez University, the two boarded a jeepney bound for Cubao,
Quezon City. Upon reaching the Banco Filipino building in Cubao, the two
alighted. Whereupon, the accused-appellant hailed a taxi, prompting the
offended party to inquire: "Sir, is it not that we are just going to take a
merienda?" Accused-appellant did not answer. Instead, he opened the
taxicab's door and pushed the offended party inside. Then, he ordered the
taxicab driver to proceed to Maya Theatre. The offended party did not shout
to avoid a scandal. Besides, she did not foresee any immediate danger since
the one taking her to a movie was her professor. Upon arriving thereat,
accused-appellant bought tickets, then took her to the lounge section where
both sat on a bench. Shortly, thereafter, accused-appellant lighted a cigarette
and as he pressed her on the shoulder told the offended party, to smoke it,
which she did as the former placed it into her mouth. This caused her to
cough and get dizzy. Forthwith, accused-appellant led her to a secluded
section on the balcony where they took their seats.
Accused-appellant, then pretending to relieve the offended party of her
dizziness, offered her a chocolate candy, which she ate unsuspecting of the
accused-appellant's evil intention. Thereafter, accused-appellant gave her
another one which she also ate still believing that it was also intended to
relieve her further of her dizziness. Thereafter, the offended party already felt
different. She was feeling warm inside, and could no longer control her
feelings. She did not reveal this to the accused appellant who must have
sensed it just the same because the former did not resist when he started
stroking her. Subsequently, accused-appellant gave her a third candy, this
time, directly from his mouth through kissing, as she already lost control of
her reason or will power. Taking advantage of her situation, accused-
appellant started kissing her and fondled her private parts, including her
breasts for quite sometime. Then accused-appellant invited the offended
party to leave, to which she did not object as she was no longer herself. (pp.
28-32, 34-36, 54-56, t.s.n., Ibid).

The two took a taxicab and proceeded to the Rose Garden Motel, in Sta.
Mesa, Manila. Upon reaching the motel, they entered a room whereupon, the
offended party proceeded to a bed and laid down. After closing the door,
accused-appellant sat beside her and gave her another candy, the fourth. He
also gave her a cigarette but she was not able to smoke it because she was
too dizzy that she fell from the bed, causing her hips to hit the edge of a
dresser. She tried to stand but she fell on the bed. The accused-appellant
then was beside her. He started undressing her slowly, but before removing
her panty, he fondled her breasts, and then gave her the fifth chocolate
candy. The next thing she knew was that accused-appellant was able to have
carnal knowledge of her. She trembled with pain just as she also noticed the
accused-appellant tremble. This was repeated four times; after which she laid
down motionless as she felt so weak to move. (pp. 57-67, t.s.n., June
30,1977; pp. 4-9, t.s.n., July 13, 1977; pp. 3-6, t.s.n., September 7, 1977).

Before the offended party could regain her strength, accused-appellant pulled
her inside the bathroom and flushed her with water. This made her feel alive
('nabuhayan ako') until she regained her normal feelings. She started to cry,
but accused-appellant tried to stop her in order not to attract attention. And,
believing that she was worried about getting pregnant, accused-appellant
teasingly told her that "with two hundred pesos (P200.00), it could be
removed." Whereupon, accused-appellant warned the offended party not to
inform anybody about the incident threatening to take her life, reminding her
of her night classes and of the two mathematics subjects she shall be taking
under him. Thereafter, accused-appellant told her to dress up, and after
advising her not to attract the attention of anybody, they left the motel and
took a taxicab for Cubao where accused- appellant alighted near the
Farmer's Market. From there the offended party proceeded home to
Provident Village in the same taxicab. (pp. 10-15, t.s.n., July 13, 1977; pp.
66-67, t.s.n., Aug. 9, 1977; pp. 10-15, t.s.n., Sept. 7, 1977).

The offended party was not able to report the incident to anybody because
she did not know what to do. She attended her classes including her
Mathematics class under the accused-appellant. Everytime she met the
accused-appellant in his classes, the latter would threaten to kill her and
reveal their affair to her boyfriend, should she not accede to his wishes.
Because of these threats, she was forced to meet the accused-appellant in
 front of the National Book Store in Cubao at 10:00 o'clock in the morning of
January 8, 1977, which was then a Saturday. From there, accused- appellant
took her to the Rose Garden Motel, where the former again succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of her for four times. They left the motel at about
3:00 o'clock in the afternoon in order that she could attend her classes (pp.
15-2 1, t.s.n., July 13, 1977; pp. 15-30, t.s.n., September 7, 1977; Exhibit 'E').

That evening of January 8, 1977, accused-appellant had a drinking spree

with the offended party's boyfriend, Jesus Tolentino, to whom the former
must have divulged his affair with the offended party. Because of that,
Tolentino waited for the offended party to come out of her last class and
invited her for a talk which she accepted. They proceeded to Barrio Fiesta
Restaurant in Cubao where Tolentino confronted her about her affair with the
accused-appellant. At first, she denied, but had to admit it after a long
argument. As a result, Tolentino spanked her and forcibly brought her to his
residence at St. Ignatius Village, in Quezon City, where the former also
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her for seven times. He also told
his board mates to take their turns, but they took pity on her and refrained
from molesting her. (pp. 21-27, t.s.n., July 13, 1977; pp. 30-32, 37-51, t.s.n.,
Sept. 7, 1977; Exhibit 'E').

It was already 4:30 o'clock in the morning of the following day (January 9,
1977) that the offended party was able to leave the place of Tolentino.
Instead of proceeding home, she went to Cubao where she boarded a
taxicab. And, because she was already so weak and did not know what to
do, the driver brought her to Vito Cruz where somebody by the name of
Gerry Ibanez saw her and took pity on her. Ibanez took her to a lady cousin
who resides in Pasay City. She stayed there until January 13, 1977, when
she decided to go home upon the advice of Ibanez and his cousin, who both
convinced her that no other person could help her better than her own
relatives. As soon as she arrived home, he learned that her uncle and aunt
were looking for her while she was away. That same afternoon, they
accompanied her to Camp Crame to report what happened to her. After
investigation, she was told to go to the NBI for medical examination, which
she did the following day (January 15, 1977 — sic:January 14, 1977 per
Exhibit 'B') in company of her aunt. Then she returned to Camp Crame to
give her sworn statements wherein she narrated how she was sexually
abused by the accused-appellant and her former boyfriend, Jesus Tolentino
(Exhibit 'E'). Aside from the complaint against the accused-appellant, she
shall filed administrative charges against him with the respondent of
University, the Assistant Dean of the D t of Commerce of the same university,
and also with the Bureau of Higher Education. A formal investigation was
conducted at the University, as a writ of which, accused-appellant was no
longer allowed to teach (pp. 27-57, t.s.n., July 13, 1977).

Dr. Rodolfo Lesondra, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, permit to a request for medicolegal
assistance for the alleged crime of rape committed on the offended party, examined her and
after the examination, the doctor prepared the following report (Exhibit 'B'): 
têñ.£îhqwâ£

Living Case No. MG-77-34

Subject : name — Carol Dumrique y Mesa

 age — 17 years old Alleged

Case: RAPE

Commission: 4 January 1977 at the Rose Garden Motel, Sta. Mesa Manila
and 8 January 1977 at No. 17 Riverdale Street, St. Ignatius Village, Quezon
City, Metro Manila.

FINDINGS

GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:

Normally developed, fairly nourished, conscious, coherent, cooperative,

ambulatory, afebrile subject. "Breasts in early stage of development, conical
doughy in consistency. Araeola light brown, 2.0 centimeters in diameter.
Nipples, protruding, pinkish brown, 0.6 centimeters in diameter.

EXTRAGENITAL PHYSICAL INJURY:

Abrasion, healed recently, left supra-gluteal region 2.5 x 6 centimeters, with

bright reddish pink central portion and with brown scab which readily falls off
on manipulation.

GENITAL EXAMINATION:

Pubic hairs, fine, short, and with scanty growth. Labia majora, plump, moist,
coaptated. Labia minora, pinkish, moist, coaptated. Four chatted, tense.
Vestibular mucosa, moist and pinkish. Hymen, moderately wide, thick, with
healing lacerations complete at 3:00 o'clock, deep at 9:00 o'clock positions,
corresponding to the face of a watch. Edges of these lacerations are bright
red coaptated, and when separated reveals a V-shaped base which are
bright red and slightly congested. Hymenal orifice annular, admits a glass
tube 2.8 centimeters in diameter with moderately marked resistance. Vaginal
walls tight. Rugosities, prominent. Service small, closed, hard.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. Extra-genital physical injury described above-noted on the body of the

subject at the tune of examination, age of which is compatible with the
alleged date of infliction.

2. Genital findings present compatible with sexual intercourse with man on or

about the alleged dates of commission.

Dr. Lesondra further testified that there were no traces of male semen found in the offended
party's vagina due to the long intervening period from the dates of the rapes complained of
and the NBI medicolegal assistance conducted; that the abrasion located at the
complainant's left buttock could have been caused by contact with a hard or rough object or
surface; that the complete laceration of the complainant's hymen at 3:00 o'clock and 9:00
o'clock positions is compatible with the alleged time or date of the acts complained of; and
that he is of the opinion that the victim was physically a virgin prior to the acts complained of
(i.e., that her hymen was intact prior to the rape although it does not necessarily mean that
she has had no previous sexual experience since it is possible that the hymen might still be
intact despite previous sexual knowledge).

The version of the defense tends to show voluntariness on the part of the complainant in
going with the accused-appellant to the movies on the 4th of January 1977 and that their
sexual interlude at the Rose Garden Motel immediately thereafter was not one which
constitutes rape. Thus, the defense, in its Brief, recites the following version: 
têñ.£îhqwâ£

Appellant testified that he knew the complaining witness since she is her
student in Math 2-B from November 1976; that at 3:00 p.m., January 4, 1977
he was at the University compound and at 4:00 p.m. of the same date, he
entered his classroom which is Room 206 to meet his students in
Mathematics; that he has few students who were present and around five
minutes after he arrived, complaining witness went inside his classroom and
joined the class but because of the number of absences he decided to
dismiss them; that while inside the classroom he talked to co t in the
presence of his students and when his students left leaving her behind he
jokingly invited her to see a movie and that they win meet at the National
Book Store, after saying that he left and proceeded to the Office of the Vice
President where he stayed for about five minutes; that he then went to the
National Book Store, Cubao, Quezon City; that he did not threaten to fail
complaining witness or forced to go down the Ortanez University; that when
he arrived at the bookstore, he saw her and they have a short conversation;
that they walked from said store to the International Drug Store around 100
meters away to get a ride; that they boarded a bus bound for Caloocan and
both of them alighted infront of the Grand Theatre along E. de los Santos
Ave., Cubao, Quezon City; that upon alighting from the bus they went to the
lobby of said theater to look for the pictures being shown which she did not
like, so they went walking to Maya Theater also along E. de los Santos Ave.,
Cubao, Quezon City, just around 200 meters away; that when they reached
Maya Theater they bought two orchestra seat tickets; that from Ortanez
University and all the places where they went or passed up to Maya theater
there were many people as well as Security Guards and Policemen; that they
then went up to the mezzanine floor using the stairs and upon reaching said
floor, he gave her P2.00 to buy peanuts but there was none at the store so
he suggested to buy chocolate instead and she bought Nips chocolate; that
at the ground floor of Maya theater up to the mezzanine floor there were
people around and on the ground floor there were guards; that after she
bought Nips chocolate, she went to the comfort room while he waited for her
near the person who collects the tickets for orchestra seats; that when
complaining witness came out of the comfort room there were people in the
mezzanine and they passed by the person who collects the tickets of the
orchestra seats; that he did (not) force her to smoke at the lounging area of
the theater or forced her to eat Chocolate candy and the seats near them
were occupied by other movie goers; that after they were seated, he placed
his right hand over her shoulder and finding no reaction, he lowered it to her
right side and again there was no reaction so he tried to put his hand over
her breast but she removed it by a jerk.

That after around 2 minutes, he tried again to put his hand on her breast, this
time she held it and she gave by hand a Nips chocolate candy which she
bought in the store at the mezzanine of the theater which he accepted also
by hand, then another for the second by the same manner and the third one,
which she gave it to him by the mouth and he received it also by the mouth.
"That he suggested to her to go out because it is very shameful
(embarrassing) for doing such in the place where there are many people but
she did not answer and they went out of the movie after staying for around 35
minutes.

That while they were going out there were many people that they have
passed; that from the Maya theater they walked towards Now York street to
the direction of Caloocan and while waiting they Passed many people, that
they walked towards said street because he suspected that they go to a
private place; that at the comer of New York and E. de los Santos Ave. there
was a porce outpost and a policeman was conducting traffic at the time; that
when they boarded a taxi, appellant directed the driver to bring them to the
Rose Garden Motel which is located at Sta. Mesa, Manila; that she entered
the taxi voluntary and she did not attempt to get out; that while inside the taxi
she asked him where they are going and he told her that they will go to the
Rose Garden Motel; that she did not make any protest when he told her
where they win that in going to the motel they passed by several vehicles and
pedestrians along Aurora Blvd., where they passed, that while inside the taxi
they were holding hands.

That when they reached the motel they were allowed to enter by a male
person and at the gate there was a guard, that she did not make any protest;
that they alighted at the motel compound where there were people and they
walked to the motel to , that while registering there were motel personnel
around and when they went to the room they were accompanied by a
personnel of the motel

That while inside the motel room they sat on the bed, that he did (not) force
her to smoke or sat chocolate candy, that it was she who took his cigarrette
when. he placed it in the ashtray and puffed it; that for around two minutes
they had a conversation and after that he tried to kiss her; that she did not
protest and she also kissed him so they embraced each other kissing that he
to her to remove her dress because it might be crumpled which she did alone
and after she removed her dress they started kissing each other again while
already lying on bed, that she removed her bra and panty, he also removed
his clothes and brief then they had in urge without any protest from her; that
after they had intercourse she went to the comfort room still naked and after
coming out she He down beside him and they were kissing again.

That after they were kissing each other, he mat down and took a cigarrette
that they had a conversation and have the second intercourse which lasted
about 2 to 3 min. then another conversation about their plan on their next
date an January 8, 1977 while they were still naked, that they where kissing
and after which they have again the third intercourse; that she went to the
comfort room for the second time and when she came out they had a
conversation that they will go home and they both up .

That he did not threaten her while inside the motel and she was in her natural
condition while in the taxi going to the motel and when they entered the
motel; that in going out they asked the permission of the motel personnel and
when they asked said permission she was beside him; that they walked in
going out of the motel compound, passed the guard at the gate and when
they were already at the street they hailed a taxi and boarded it for Provident
Village, Marikina that she did not complain to the motel personnel, guard or
the taxi driver; that upon reaching the gate of Provident Village, he alighted
from the taxi because she did not want her auntie to see them.

That he did not threaten her; that he has many friends in the school and she
could vanish easily, or meaning, to kill her; that she is close to him since
November 19, 1976 and said relationship has not changed after January 4,
1977; that the following day January 5, 1977 she attended her class with him
in Math and on January 7, 1977 he met her and talked to her and on both
occasions she was in her natural way.

That on January 8, 1977 at 10:00 a.m., a Saturday, they met at the National
Book Store, Cubao, Quezon City, the date, tune and place they agreed to
meet on January 4, 1977 at the Rose Garden Motel; that she even arrived
ahead of him; that in the place where they met there were many people,
security guards as well as policemen; that when they met, she was in her
normal way but in a hurry because according to her, her auntie is going to
Cubao and she might see us (sic) that is why we had to go to Aurora
Boulevard.

That in going to Aurora Blvd., they passed by the alley of business

establishments crowded with people, guards and policemen; that upon
reaching Aurora Blvd., he hailed a taxi infront of Banco Filipino where there
were security guards and many pedestrians and when the taxi stopped she
opened the door, entered first and he followed; that when they were already
inside the taxi. she was very happy for having avoided her auntie.

That from Cubao to the Rose Garden Motel the taxi passed along Aurora
Blvd.. which at the time, traffic was heavy; that in getting inside the motel
compound they passed by the security guard at the gate and a person
opened the door for them; that this time she was happy and made no sign of
protest.

That while he was registering she never attempted to get out; that on that
date they stayed in the motel from 10:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. where they had
conversation, kissing and sexual intercourse; that in getting out of the motel
they asked the permission of the motel personnel and they walked towards
the street passing the guard at the gate.

That when they reached the street they boarded a taxi for Cubao, Quezon
City and he alighted at the gasoline station near Ortanez University while she
went home to Marikina; that at around 5:30 in the afternoon of the same day
he saw her at the Ortanez University acting in her normal way strolling at the
second floor after their short conversation.

That she filed this case against him because her boyfriend, Jesus Tolentino
got mad at her when he learned or found in her notebook the word "Lyndiol "
a name of a pill for birth control; that Tolentino told her that he (appellant)
revealed what happened between us (sic).
 That Tolentino brought her to a Cubao restaurant then to his house; that
Tolentino spanked her and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly.

In convicting the accused for the crime of rape, the court said that: "This version of the
accused is quite unbelievable not only because the victim is pictured as a sex-starved young
girl but also worse than a prostitute, who, with everything in her power wig arouse a man to
the height of his passion even in a crowded place in order to get what she wants. She is
shown to be even lower than a common prostitute, a tempting Jesebel and a hussy who
made all the aggressive moves to consummate their intercourse. But even assuming that
this unfounded allusions on the character and behavior of the victim is true, the Court
can(not) but condemn the accused, a professor in a university, a married man and who
because of his age, could be considered a father to the victim to take liberties on the body of
his young student in a public place and in the presence of many people. Also, as an and
teacher, it is his obligation to guide and counsel his students on what is right, on what should
be, on what ought to be As a teacher, he should be a model of good behavior and morality.
His conduct alone is the best evidence to show his depraved manner and which the Court
can (not) but condemn His behavior, in putting the victim in a situation in which he took
liberties on her body, more than speak clearly and convincingly that his intentions towards
her were not moral but on the contrary, immoral and depraved. Sad to say that the accused
even came to realize later that what they were doing inside the theater was shameful. Was it
really his realization that his intentions while carressing the victim in the presence of many
(people) was shameful? Or was it because his passion was already aroused to a height that
his lust must be satisfied, so that he has to suggest their leaving the theater? Or was it
because he already came to realize that the victim has become an easy prey of his human
desires and lust Or yet, was it because the accused know that after giving the victim
chocolates to eat and cigarette to smoke, her passion was already aroused so that she could
no longer resist him? The answers to these questions find more meaning in the version of
the victim herself. "

Justifying its conviction of rape against the accused-appellant, the trial court recounted the
evidentiary basis in the following wise and manner:  têñ.£îhqwâ£

The victim had categorically declared she was given chocolate no less than
three times before copulation and made to smoke cigarette also twice, in
addition to the fact that the accused made threats at her. An these in effect,
had deprived the victim of her reason, weakened her resistance which the
accused took advantage of in order to satisfy his lustful and animal desires.
The Court believes that the three pieces of chocolate given to the victim
which she ate, as well as the cigarette she was made to smoke, contained
drugs which caused her to be dizzy, weak and had also aroused her passion.
At the motel, after taking the third chocolate, her physical condition worsened
causing her to fan off the bed. The condition in which the victim was in, could
not make her offer any effective resistance to any actual assault on her
person and virtue.

As earlier indicated, the accused-appellant was found guilty of rape and sentenced to
RECLUSION PERPETUA; to pay the offended party the amount of 115,000.00 and the
further sum of P1,000.00 as attomey's fees and to pay the costs. The court found no
sufficient evidence that there was a forcible abduction of the victim. The evidence presented
by the prosecution does not even show that the personal liberty of the victim was violate for
the same is the essence or nature of the crime. The evidence shows that the victim went
voluntary with the accused when invited to take merienda until she was given chocolates and
made to smoke, the effects of which after eating and smoking has deprived her of her
resistance when she was raped. "

On appeal, accused-appellant assigns the following errors:  têñ.£îhqwâ£

The lower court erred in finding that the evidence presented constitute the
crane of rape.

II

The lower court erred in disregarding the motive in the filing of the case.

Article 335, Revised Penal Code, provides when and how rape is committed, to wit:  têñ.£îhqwâ£

Art. 335. When and how rape committed rape is committed. — Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the
circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be
present.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of deadly weapon or
by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become
insane, the penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or or frustrated and a homicide is committed by

reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the

penalty shall be death. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 2632 and Rep. Act No.
41 1 1).

There is no question that rape is a most detestable crime and should, therefore, be severely
and impartially punished. But a rape charge is easy to make, hard to prove and harder to
defend by the party accused, though innocent. (Cornelia Flores, 26 Phil. 262, 268; Ignacio
Landicho, 8 ACR 580; Rafael Lacson, CA 53 O.G. 1823; Francisco Salvador, CA 52 O.G.
7290; Lago CA 45 O.G. 1356; Barbo, 56 SCRA 459). Experience has shown that unfounded
charges of rape have frequently been preferred by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior
or undisclosed motive. Convictions for such crane should not be sustained without clear and
convincing proof of guilt. (Bay, 27 Phil. 495; Pantaleon Ramos, 35 Phil. 671; Brocal CA 36
O.G. 857; Topacio, CA 36 O.G. 1358). On more than one occasion it has been pointed out
that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman should not be received
with precipitate credulity. When the conviction depends on any vital point upon her
uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free
from suspicion. A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in judging matters of this
kind. (Fernando Fausto, 51 Phil. 852) (See The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, 1977 Edition,
pp. 1679- 1680, by Justice Ramon Aquino).

There are three (3) well-known principles that guide an appellate court in reviewing the
evidence presented in a prosecution for the crime of rape and these are: (1) that an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove it but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the
crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fag on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense.

In the light of the above considerations and after, a careful and conscientious study, analysis
and review of the prosecution evidence, We have come to the conclusion that the
government has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is merit
to the contention of the accused-appellant that the act of sexual intercourse he had
admittedly with the offended party does not constitute the crime of rape because he did it
with the consent of the latter, there being no evidence showing that he used force or
intimidation nor was the offended party deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. There
are indeed a number of facts and circumstances that belie the claim of the offended party
that she was raped by the accused-appellant in the manner testified to by her:

1. That the complainant, after having been raped on January 4 by the accused as charged in
the information, did again meet with him four days subsequently on January 8, 1977 at the
National Book Store in Cubao, Quezon City at 10:00 o'clock a.m. and thereafter both
proceeded to the Rose Garden Motel where they had sexual intercourse four times, leaving
the motel only at about 3:00 o'clock p.m., at which occasion the complainant never
complained of threats, intimidation nor of having been given chocolate candy to eat or
cigarette to smoke and, therefore, consented freely and voluntarily to such repeated sexual
pleasure, cannot but indicate serious doubt and suspicion to her claim of rape at the first
instance, that is four days earlier at the same motel on January 4, 1977. It is quite
improbable that the victim of an alleged rape would consent so soon to another tryst with the
rapist and enjoy sexual gratification with him, unless she had previously given herself to him
freely and easily on an earlier occasion. For her now to claim that she was ravished and
deflowered under threats and intimidation by the accused-appellant who allegedly told her
that she had two Mathematics subjects under him, cannot be believed. Such a conduct
simply is diametrically opposed to what is expected and is normal to a girl whose virtue had
been destroyed, her honor ruined, for then she would have been furious, bitter and resentful
against him who had violated her.

2. That in the evening of January 8, 1977, the complainant met with her boyfriend, Jesus
Tolentino, who brought her to his residence at St. Ignatius Village, Quezon City where he
had sexual intercourse with her for seven times, indicates the laxity of complainant's moral
behavior, detracting from the traditional and proverbial modesty and decency of the Filipino.
3. The delay in subjecting the complainant to a medical examination which took place eleven
(11) days after the sex assault and the lack of proof that the chocolate candies taken by her
were really "drugged" reflect the weakness of the prosecution evidence.

The conclusion is inevitable that the complainant was not sexually assaulted against her will
but that she yielded her honor and virtue willingly.

The original information filed against the accused-appellant was for forcible abduction with
rape. The trial court acquitted him of the forcible abduction charge, there being no showing
that the personal liberty of the victim was violated when she accepted the invitation of the
accused-appellant to take merienda with him and thereafter proceeded to the motel in Sta.
Mesa, Manila. While there is proof that the complainant was a virgin, above twelve years of
age and below eighteen years at the time and the facts and circumstances on record show
the commission of the crime of consented abduction, the failure in the information to allege
these vital elements do not warrant a conviction for consented abduction under the present
information (See Art. 343, Revised Penal Code; Valdepena vs. People, 16 SCRA 871; Barba
vs. People, 89 SCRA 112; People vs. Castro, 58 SCRA 473; People vs. Samillano, 56 SCRA
573; People vs. Magat, 94 Phil. 118; People vs. Ernesto Sison, G.R. No. L-45857, Oct. 27,
1983). The prosecution should file the corresponding valid information for consented
abduction against the accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the accused- appellant Godofredo

Quintal y Santos is hereby ACQUITTED. Costs de oficio.

His immediate release is hereby ordered unless he is held for some other valid charges.

SO ORDERED. 1äwphï1.ñët

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., dissenting:

I dissent of reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Felix C. Barbers. The rule is where the
ability to resist is taken away by administering drugs, even though the woman may be
conscious, sexual intercourse with her is rape(75 C.J.S. 480). One should not ignore the fact
that the girl was only 17 years old and that the accused was her professor.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., dissenting:
I dissent of reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Felix C. Barbers. The rule is where the
ability to resist is taken away by administering drugs, even though the woman may be
conscious, sexual intercourse with her is rape(75 C.J.S. 480). One should not ignore the fact
that the girl was only 17 years old and that the accused was her professor.