G.R. No. 20063. August 27, 1923

The defendant-appellant was charged with the crime of rape. The complaint
alleged:

“That on or about October 4, 1922, in the municipality of Panay, Province of
Capiz, Philippine Islands, the aforesaid accused, being the principal teacher of
the public school of said municipality, did willfully, unlawfully, criminally,
and through force and intimidation lie and have carnal knowledge with Maria
Bernales, against the latter’s will, she being a maiden eighteen years of age,
and a teacher of the same school and subordinate of the accused, the act having
been committed in the very school building. Contrary to law.”

Upon said complaint the defendant was duly tried, found guilty of the crime
charged, and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seventeen years and four
months of reclusion temporal, to pay to the offended party the sum of
P1,000 and to maintain the child, if any should be born as a result of the said
illicit relations, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay
the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court.

In his first assignment of error, he alleges that the lower court committed
an error in his finding of fact that the appellant and the offended party had,
by mutual consent, illicit relations prior to the 4th day of October, 1922. An
examination of the record shows that the appellant admitted, in open court
(stenographic notes, p. 66) that he had been having illicit relations with the
offended party for several months prior to the date mentioned in the complaint
(4th day of October, 1922). In view of his own admission in open court it
scarcely seems necessary to argue the first assignment of error.

In his second assignment of error, he alleges that the lower court committed
an error in not permitting him to ask questions concerning the person, or
persons, who had instigated the present prosecution. An examination of the
record shows that the offended party, Maria Bernales, filed the complaint in the
court of the justice of the peace of the municipality of Panay, the next morning
after the commission of the offense described in the complaint. The record,
therefore, answers the question of the appellant. Any further inquiry into that
question is deemed unnecessary.

In his third assignment of error, he alleges that the lower court committed
an error in his treatment of the witnesses for the defense. An examination of
the record clearly refutes the allegations of the appellant. There is nothing in
the record which shows that the lower court in any way attempted to intimidate,
or to influence, the witnesses for the defense.

The facts, as they appear from the record, may be stated as follows:

That the appellant and the offended party were both teachers in the public
school; that the appellant was 23 years of age; that the offended party was 18
years of age. The evidence also shows that there had been some relations between
the appellant and the offended party for some time prior to the commission of
the act described in the complaint, for the reason that she made an effort to be
transferred to some other school. She intimated that the people of the community
were talking about her relations with the appellant. The appellant was a married
man. The mother of the offended party, together with her daughter, made a visit
to the appellant for the purpose of discussing the rumors abroad in the
community about their relations.

The appellant, evidently, when he declared that he had been having illicit
relations with the offended party, did so under the belief that that would
convince the court that the illicit relations, which took place at the time and
place mentioned in the complaint, did not take place by force and violence and
against her will.

Maria Bernales swore positively, during the trial of the cause, that she was
forced by violence to submit to the illicit relations which she charged in the
complaint. That she tried to defend herself by striking the appellant with a
paper weight, and that as a result of the blow a scar was produced upon the face
of the appellant. During the trial the appellant presented the scar on his nose
and explained that it had been produced by Maria Bernales. He attempted to
justify the fact that he had been struck by Maria Bernales with a paper weight
by showing that she had illegally attacked him. The lower court believed the
explanation given by Maria Bernales and refused to accept the explanation given
by the appellant.

Admitting that the appellant had been having illicit relations with the
offended party for months before the time and place mentioned in the complaint,
yet, nevertheless, that fact would not constitute a defense, providing the
illicit relations, which are described in the complaint, took place by force and
violence and against the will of the offended party.

The fact that Maria Bernales may have been an unchaste character constitutes
no defense of the charge of rape, providing it is proved that the illicit
relations described in the complaint were committed with force and violence The
appellant is equally guilty, under the law, if force and violence were used,
regardless of the good or bad morals of Maria Bernales. (People vs.
Hartman, 103 Cal., 242; McClain on Criminal Law, vol. 1, sec. 460 and cases
cited.)

For the reason that the lower court made a careful and extended analysis of
the evidence in his decision, all of which were announced to the appellant, we
find no reason, nor good purpose, for making a re-analysis of the evidence at
this time.

After a careful examination of the evidence, we are fully persuaded that the
facts and the law fully justify the conclusion of the lower court. The sentence
appealed from is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns,
and Romualdez, JJ., concur.