G.R. No. 1315. March 24, 1904

On the 7th of March, 1903, the provincial fiscal of Tarlac filed an
information in the Court of First Instance of that province charging
Eusebio Versosa with the crime of rape, in that on the morning of
January 21 last, while Maria Junio, a married woman, was walking
through the fields from her house in the town of Camiling toward the
barrio of Sinilian, she was stopped by Eusebio Versosa, who, bolo in
hand, compelled her to go into the neighboring forest where, by means
of intimidation, he succeeded in having sexual intercouse with her and
then restrained her of her liberty until the following day, this
contrary to the statute in the case made and provided.

In her sworn testimony the complaining witness testified that she
was 19 years of age; that she was acquainted with the defendant,
Versosa, as the latter frequented the house of her brother which was a
short distance from her own house, where she had also seen him several
times; that she was stopped by Versosa on tiae morning in question
while walking through an uninhabited field toward the barrio of
Sinilian where she was going to buy sugar; that she was compelled to
follow him, being intimidated by his threats that he would kill her
with his bolo if she would not go with him into the forest at Lasung;
that while there he had sexual intercourse with her twice and
restrained her of her liberty until the following day, when he
permitted her to go; that the clothing she was wearing was torn; that
on the occasion in question she was alone and did not see
anyone in the said field, which was a long way from the town; that upon
returning to her home she informed her husband of what had occurred.

Balbino Libre, or Simbre, also testified under oath that Eusebio
Versosa, the brother of a neighbor of his, frequently went to his house
to get water; that the said Versosa one morning early in the month of
January stopped the witness’s wife in the road, and, threatening to
kill her, made her go into the forest at a place called Lasung, where
he had carnal knowledge of her and kept her in detention until the
following day; that he had never heard that his wife sustained illicit
relations with the said Versosa.

Upon this testimony the court below rendered judgment March 23,
1903, convicting the defendant of the crime of rape and condemning him
to the penalty of fourteen years and ten months of reclusion temporal, with the accessories and to the payment of the costs, from which judgment the defendant appealed.

The defendant first pleaded guilty, but his attorney subsequently withdrew the plea and substituted for it that of not guilty.

The act committed by Eusebio Versosa constitutes the crime of rape,
defined and punished in article 438 of the Penal Code. The evidence
shows that Eusebio Versosa stopped a woman named Maria Junio in an
uninhabited place and by force and intimidation conveyed her into the
forest where he twice succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her by
threatening to kill her.

Although the accused pleaded not guilty his guilt is sufficiently
established by the evidence. The defendant alleged that he had
sustained illicit relations with the complaining witness and that on
this account he frequented her house; that on the 21st of January they
both went to the barrio of Barang and stayed together for four days in
the house of one Molis in that barrio; that one day they were surprised
by Ramon Fernando; that the complaining witness had been his mistress
for some two years, notwithstanding the fact that she was a married
woman; these statements, however, were not proven and have been
absolutely denied by the complaining witness, Maria Junio, in her
subsequent testimony. She testified that she was unable to return to
her house at once, as the defendant would not allow her to go.

The husband of the complaining witness in turn testified that he had
been married three years and had never heard that his wife had made
assignations with the defendant, Versosa, or sustained amorous
relations with him. He further testified that he reported the matter to
the teniente of the barrio of Maraui on the same day his wife returned
and informed him of the facts.

This case concerns a crime which, owing to the precautions taken by
the criminal, is generally committed in an isolated place1 where there
is no danger that the assault upon the victim will be seen. This case
adds one more to the many with which the courts have dealt. It was
committed in an uninhabited place, in the interior of a forest, on the
person of a married woman 19 years of age by a man of 30, armed with a
bolo.

Between the assertions of the complaining witness and the denial of
the defendant, in view of the nature of the crime, and the
cireuinstances under which it was committed, one can but be convinced
that the charge is true. The sworn testimony of the defendant himself
show’s not only that he is guilty but that in addition to this he has
made assertions which tend to dishonor his victim, the accused
affirming that she was his mistress but without proving or even making
an attempt to prove this imputation, by
the testimony of the two witnesses whom he had subpoenaed for that
purpose. Consequently, in view of the absolute denial of the
complaining witness and of her husband we can but conclude that the
crime was actually committed, that the defendant is guilty, and that
his exculpatory allegations are false.

No generic, mitigating, or aggravating circumstance occurred in the
perpetration of the crime, and consequently the adequate penalty must
be imposed in its medium degree.

Therefore we are of the opinion that the judgment appealed must be
affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. Judgment will be
entered accordingly and the case remanded for execution thereof with a
certified copy of this decision. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Cooper, Willard, Mapa, McDonough, and Johnson, JJ., concur.