THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PERFECTO ALCANTARA Y CARIÑO ALIAS QUIRIN AND MAURO MEDINA Y NINOBLA, ACCUSED, MAURO MEDINA Y NINOBLA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Two criminal cases were jointly tried by the Court of First
Instance of La Union, Branch III:  (1) for Forcible Abduction with Rape
(Criminal Case No. A-285) against Perfecto ALCANTARA, alias Quirin, and MAURO MEDINA y Ninobla,
the APPELLANT in this case; and (2) for Serious Illegal Detention against
Perfecto ALCANTARA (Criminal Case No. A-286).

Originally, one Hipolito Abellera was included as an accused in the Forcible
Abduction with Rape case.  However, the
charge against him was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence by the Municipal
Court of Aringay, La Union, upon a motion to dismiss
filed by the Chief of Police of the same municipality.^[1]

The consolidated Decision of the Trial Court convicted ALCANTARA
and APPELLANT of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape, but acquitted
ALCANTARA of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Only APPELLANT has appealed from the judgment of conviction,
which imposed the penalty of two reclusion perpetuas
on each of the two accused.

The testimonies of prosecution witnesses have established the
following facts:

At around 8:00 o’clock
in the evening of June 24, 1966,
Paulino Mangaoang, a
widower, (the Father) was in his house at Sta. Lucia, Aringay,
La Union, packing his clothes in preparation for his trip to Manila.  Josefina, his fifteen year old daughter, and
the COMPLAINANT herein, was in front of the stove cooking arrozcaldo.  Hipolito Abellera, accompanied by APPELLANT and ALCANTARA
arrived.  Abellera
informed the Father that he
could not go with the latter to Manila
as agreed upon, because he was busy. 
They lingered a while on the Father’s invitation that they have supper,
which was almost ready.

While waiting, APPELLANT and ALCANTARA commented that COMPLAINANT
was embraced by a man.  The Father asked
COMPLAINANT about the truth of the remark but was met with silence.  Angered, the Father slapped her twice.  Abellera held
him.  COMPLAINANT sat down and
cried.  APPELLANT threatened the father
saying:  “You do what you want and
we will kill you!”^[2]
COMPLAINANT and her two brothers, Paulino, Jr. (13
years old) and Elpidio (9 years old), then left for
their grandfather’s house as was customary whenever their father went to Manila.  APPELLANT and ALCANTARA left also, while Abellera held the father, who was struggling to be
released.  Abellera
freed him and jumped down from the kitchen. 
The Father searched for his bolo but could not find it.  He then followed to his father’s house where
he told his children to go, but his children were not there as he had expected.

While the three children were walking to their grandfather’s
house, APPELLANT and ALCANTARA overtook them and held COMPLAINANT’s
hands.  APPELLANT pointed a knife at her
breast and warned her not to scream.  Paulino, Jr. ran away. 
Elpidio clung to his sister’s dress.  Under the camachile
tree, APPELLANT made indecent advances but she pushed him away.  APPELLANT told ALCANTARA to go back to COMPLAINANT’s house and get her trunk, while he stood
guard.  After a while, ALCANTARA came
back carrying the trunk on his shoulder. 
They then proceeded towards the river. 
APPELLANT separated from them. 
ALCANTARA was with them as they went on a circuitous way to his
house.  On reaching ALCANTARA’s
hut around 9:00 o’clock that evening,
APPELLANT was already there, leaning on a post partly hiding.  Inside the one-room hut, where ALCANTARA, a
widower and three of his minor children lived, ALCANTARA lighted a lamp and
spread a mat, telling COMPLAINANT and Elpidio to lie
down.  He then blew out the light and
went down.

COMPLAINANT was roused from her sleep by a
heaviness on top of her. 
ALCANTARA was upon her, facing her while she was lying on her back.  His breath smelled of liquor.  She screamed but a dagger was pointed at
her.  APPELLANT was sitting on the trunk
near her head, holding her hands upward. 
Her skirt was already drawn up. 
She noticed that she no longer had her panty on.  ALCANTARA had carnal knowledge of her.  She felt pain and blood oozed from her
private part.  APPELLANT told ALCANTARA
to hurry.  After a few minutes, she felt something come
out and the world was whirling. 
APPELLANT and ALCANTARA exchanged positions.  APPELLANT, too, abused her.^[3]
APPELLANT left the hut and told ALCANTARA to do as he pleases.  ALCANTARA abused her again.  She could not resist as she was not even
strong enough to shout.^[4]
At the corner of the room she cried.  The
siren at the Municipal Hall sounded at 10:00
o’clock in the evening.  Elpidio was a meter away and saw it all.^[5]
The moon was bright and its light came in through the window.^[6]

APPELLANT, on his way home, passed the house of Tomas Mangaoang, COMPLAINANT’s
grandfather.  The Father was there and
saw APPELLANT but the Father’s sister prevented him from going out.  Instead, she asked APPELLANT where
COMPLAINANT was.  APPELLANT denied
knowing COMPLAINANT.  The Father went
home and saw clothes scattered around and a trunk missing.  He was then told by Paulino,
Jr., that COMPLAINANT was dragged by APPELLANT and ALCANTARA.  He proceeded to APPELLANT’s
house but he was not there.  The Father
did not know where to locate ALCANTARA’s house.

The next morning, the Father confronted APPELLANT but the latter
denied knowing COMPLAINANT.  Meanwhile,
early the same morning, ALCANTARA forcibly made COMPLAINANT ride a tricycle to
the highway and from there they took a bus to Paratong,
Agoo, La Union, to his aunt’s house where he left
her, telling his aunt that COMPLAINANT had run away and was looking for work.

In the meanwhile, the Father reported the matter to Sgt. Pedro Zarate, desk officer of the Aringay
Police Force, who instructed Pat. Mariano Dacanay
to look for APPELLANT and ALCANTARA.  Both
were interrogated and ALCANTARA was ordered to fetch COMPLAINANT from Paratong.  Upon being
reunited with her father, COMPLAINANT narrated how she had been ravished, and
the next day, she went for a physical examination first at the Doña Gregoria Memorial Hospital
but was referred instead to the Provincial Hospital in San Fernando, La Union
due to “lack of facilities.” Dr. Norma Boado
examined her and came up with the following findings:

“Vulva – reddened.

Labia minora – reddened

Hymen – with laceration at 9
o’clock and 3 o’clock, fresh.

Vagina – Readily admits one finger and hardly admits two fingers.

Vaginal smear – Positive
for spermatozoa.”

Dr. Boado
testified that the reddening of the vulva was caused by forcible contact with a
hard object; that COMPLAINANT was a virgin as it appeared that the tear in the
hymen had not yet healed; that there was smearing of blood; and that the
vaginal canal was tight.  The laceration
indicated that the sexual act occurred between 24 to 48 hours before the
examination.  No other injuries were
found on the person of COMPLAINANT.

For the defense,
ALCANTARA, then 29 years old, widower, a farmer and resident of Sta. Lucia, Aringay, La Union, testified that around 6:00 o’clock in the evening of June 24,
1966 he was in a store drinking liquor with some friends.  An hour later he proceeded to Manuel Gatchalian’s house with APPELLANT and had some rounds of
drink.  The Father and Hipolito Abellera were there
together.  From there, they went to the
Father’s house.  In the kitchen,
COMPLAINANT was cooking.  The Father and Hipolito were conversing, when suddenly the Father slapped
his daughter and threw a gas lamp at her. 
Hipolito asked the Father why he slapped
COMPLAINANT but the Father shouted at them: 
“Vulva of your mothers, all of you, if you don’t get out of my house, I will kill you all!”^[7] They scampered down the house.  APPELLANT and Hipolito
walked northward while he went towards the east.  He did not see APPELLANT again that night.

About 100 meters from the
Father’s house, COMPLAINANT called him. 
She was following, carrying a trunk and holding the hand of her brother Elpidio.  He waited
for her.  She pleaded that he allow her
to stay in his house because her father would maltreat her if she went back,
and should she go to her aunt’s house, he would find her there and maltreat her
just the same.  He did not personally
know COMPLAINANT, but was familiar with her as she usually passed his house on
her way to school.  He took COMPLAINANT
and Elpidio to Florentina Nawe, his aunt, whose house was about 50 meters from his
house.  After conversing for a short time
with Florentina, he went home at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening.  He slept in his house throughout the night.

At 6:00 o’clock the next morning, Florentina
sent her nine-year-old son Braulio to wake him up so
he could accompany COMPLAINANT to Rufina Nawe’s house in Paratong, Agoo, La Union.  Rufina (his aunt)
was in need of a housemaid and COMPLAINANT was willing to be one.  ALCANTARA, Braulio
and COMPLAINANT took the trip to Paratong.  COMPLAINANT left her trunk at Florentina’s house and sent Elpidio
home, admonishing him not to tell their father where she was.  ALCANTARA left COMPLAINANT in Rufina Nawe’s care and, with Braulio, returned to Sta. Lucia.

At midday, while he was gathering coconuts, Pat. Dacanay inquired from him for COMPLAINANT’s
whereabouts and he told the patrolman where she was.  He was then instructed to bring COMPLAINANT
back.  At 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he took COMPLAINANT back,
despite the latter’s insistence to stay with his aunt.  Three days later, he was summoned to the
Municipal Hall and investigated.  He was
arrested a few days later.

Florentina, Rufina and Braulio, all surnamed Nawe,
corroborated ALCANTARA’s testimony.

For his part, APPELLANT, 28
years old at the time of the incident, single, farmer and a resident of Sta.
Lucia, Aringay, La Union, testified that he was with
ALCANTARA in the early evening of June 24, 1966. 
Together they went to the house of Manuel Gatchalian.  There, they drank liquor and conversed.  Hipolito Abellera and the Father joined them.  The latter thereafter invited them to his
house.  In the Father’s house, they were
seated at the kitchen.  The Father heard
from Hipolito that someone had embraced his
daughter.  The Father asked his daughter
who was doing that but she did not reply. 
The Father slapped her.  The
Father then threatened them, so they left. 
APPELLANT left with Hipolito.  The Father overtook them and asked where
COMPLAINANT was but they replied that they did not know.  They went with the Father to his sister’s
house, but COMPLAINANT was not there. 
They left the Father there and proceeded to Bernardo Medina’s house.  They passed the house of Filomena
Dacanay and the latter inquired who they were.  At around 10:00
o’clock in the evening they arrived at Bernardo’s house and
APPELLANT asked that the chicken, which he had entrusted to Bernardo to care for, be cooked, as they had
not eaten supper.  Aurora,
Bernardo’s wife cooked the chicken which they ate at around 12:00 o’clock in the evening.

As it was already late in
the evening, they decided to spend the night in Bernardo’s house.  They (APPELLANT and Hipolito)
left for their respective homes at
6:00
o’clock in the morning.  After breakfast, he went to the coconut
plantation where he saw ALCANTARA gathering coconuts.  Later in the day, Pat. Dacanay came by and asked them where
COMPLAINANT was.  ALCANTARA told him that
he took her to his aunt’s house in Paratong, Agoo, La Union.  Three days later he was investigated.  Although he denied the rape charge, two days
after the investigation, he was
detained.

To substantiate his
testimony, Hipolito Abellera,
Filomena Dacanay and Aurora
Medina were presented.

After trial, and as
previously mentioned, a judgment of conviction was rendered in the Forcible
Abduction with Rape case, decreeing:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1.    In Criminal Case
No. A-285, the Court finds each of accused Perfecto Alcantara
y Carino alias Quirin and
accused Mauro Medina y Ninobla guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2) Rape offenses and sentences each of them to suffer
two (2) reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and
pay their proportionate shares of the costs; x x x“^[8]

Challenging that verdict,
APPELLANT alleges:

“1)   The lower Court erred in not considering in
favor of the appellant the exculpatory version of his co-accused Perfecto Alcantara and Hipolito Abellera.

2)   The lower Court erred in fully giving
credence to the complainant’s implication of the appellant and completely
ignoring the motives behind the inclusion of the appellant as one of the
accused.

3)   The lower Court erred in not ruling that the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the
appellant.”

The evidence does not
sustain the foregoing contentions.

1)   While it may be true that Hipolito
Abellera was dropped as a co-accused in the Forcible
Abduction with Rape case, it by no means follows that APPELLANT should also be
exculpated.  Abellera’s
only involvement in the occurrence at the Mangaoang
house was limited to embracing Paulino Mangaoang, Sr., COMPLAINANT’s
father, “for the purpose of preventing the latter from further beating
Josefina Mangaoang“.  There was no other evidence directly linking
him to the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.

In contrast, APPELLANT
was positively identified by COMPLAINANT, Josefina Mangaoang,
and her brother Elpidio, 9 years of age, who was with
her at the time, as one of the two accused who dragged her into thick bushes on
their way to her grandfather’s house, tried to embrace her, only to be pushed
by the latter, and subsequently took his turn in abusing her at ALCANTARA’s house.^[9]

Even conceding, as
testified to by Hipolito Abellera,
that he and APPELLANT slept at the house of Bernardo Medina in the evening of
June 24, 1966 after partaking of a chicken dinner thereat, it would neither
exculpate APPELLANT, as it has not been shown that he could not have been at
the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.  Bernardo Medina’s house was only about one
kilometer away from ALCANTARA’s hut.

Similarly, ALCANTARA’s testimony to the effect that he did not know
where APPELLANT went after they had come from the Mangaoang house and that APPELLANT
was not in his house in the evening of June 24, 1966, cannot prevail over the positive identification made by COMPLAINANT herself and her brother Elpidio.

2)   The defense theory that COMPLAINANT
voluntarily ran away with ALCANTARA due to the cruelty of her father and that
it was only to mollify her enraged father that she implicated APPELLANT, is hollow. 
For one thing, COMPLAINANT saw ALCANTARA for the first time that evening
at their house.  It is highly improbable
that she would entrust her fate to a complete stranger.  For another, she could not have been carrying
a trunk as contended by ALCANTARA when she called him along the way to her
grandfather’s house because her father was still in their house when she and
her brothers left and she could not have possibly carted away that trunk in his
presence.  Indeed, there is no plausible
reason for COMPLAINANT to include APPELLANT if that were not the truth.  The allegation that COMPLAINANT’s
family had quarreled with APPELLANT because of the latter’s chickens, which
strayed into and ate their crops, and that APPELLANT had spread unsavory rumors
about the Father’s having taken the wife of a “pensionado”
are insufficient motives for implicating APPELLANT if he were really innocent
of such an odious crime.

Where there is no
evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witnesses for the
prosecution were actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that they
were not and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.^[10] Further, COMPLAINANT’s
father testified that APPELLANT’s mother came to their house proposing that APPELLANT marry
his daughter with the promise that they will support her studies but
COMPLAINANT refused^[11] an indication that in filing the complaint it was her sincere and unadulterated desire to seek justice.

 COMPLAINANT’s positive and categorical narration of her
abduction and rape bears the earmarks of credibility.  She had disclosed the names of her abusers
soon after she was reunited with her father. 
The accused were interrogated soon thereafter and were detained.  During her direct examination, when she
described how she was raped, she cried unabashedly.^[12] It is unthinkable that an unmarried teenager
would endure the embarrassment and humiliation of a public disclosure that she
had been ravished, allow an examination of her private parts and undergo the
ordeal and expense of a Court proceeding, if such indeed were not true,^[13] not to speak of the fact that COMPLAINANT’s testimony is ably and amply supported by that
of Elpidio Mangaoang and
the medico-legal officer.

That COMPLAINANT did not
avail herself of several opportunities to escape from her abductors,
does not militate against her credibility. 
Escape was out of the question for she was guarded not only by ALCANTARA
but also by his aunt, Rufina Nawe,
who did not let her out of her sight.  Aboard
the tricycle on the way to the latter’s place, ALCANTARA continued with his
threats to kill if she made any false move.

COMPLAINANT was an
innocent and docile barrio girl of 15 at the time of the incident and was even
reluctant to admit the shame that had befallen her.  As Dr. Boado, the
examining physician had stated, COMPLAINANT initially
denied the abuse on her person but that she succeeded in extracting that fact
from COMPLAINANT only when there were no longer other people within hearing.^[14]

COMPLAINANT herself
testified that she did not right away tell her father what had happened in the
presence of other people in the house of Pat. Dacanay
but only related the whole incident to him when they left the house of Pat. Dacanay.^[15]

Her docility was also
evident when she kept silent when her father asked her whether a man had embraced her, nor did she utter a word when slapped and
thrown a lamp by him.  It should also be
borne in mind that she was terrified into submission by the combined
abuse of both accused, and the knife that each one took turns in wielding
initially while on the way to her grandfather’s house, and subsequently while
in ALCANTARA’s house as they were abusing her.  Nor could she put up any effective resistance
against the accused because each held her hands upward over her head while the
other took advantage of her.  She
screamed when she felt ALCANTARA
on top of her, but the latter immediately poked a knife at her.

The absence of abrasions, scratches or contusions in the medical
findings on COMPLAINANT’s person do not negate the
use of force and intimidation in
the commission of rape.  The lacerations
in the hymen, the reddening and inflammation of COMPLAINANT’s
private parts confirm the use of force and violence.  The lacerations on the hymen were still fresh
when she was examined by the physician, who testified that they must have been
inflicted within 24 to 48 hours previous.

In a crime of rape, force need not be irresistible, all that is
necessary is the force used by the accused is sufficient to consummate his evil
purpose.^[16]
Rape is likewise committed when intimidation is used on the victim and the
latter submits herself against her will because of fear for her life and
personal safety.^[17]

3).  APPELLANT’s guilt
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 
He held COMPLAINANT’s hands upward over her
head as ALCANTARA bestially took advantage of her.  According to COMPLAINANT, he even hurried
ALCANTARA during the latter’s act stating “Quirin
faster Quirin“.^[18]
ALCANTARA also held COMPLAINANT’s hands above her
head as APPELLANT took his turn in ravishing her.  The successive rape on COMPLAINANT was
corroborated by her younger brother; Elpidio, who was
then lying down about one meter away from her and who must have been presumed
to have been asleep.  Elpidio
testified clearly, straightforwardly and without hesitation on what he had
seen.  A young boy of 9 years at the time
could not have been merely coached to make those descriptive declarations.

Denial and alibi put up by APPELLANT cannot prevail over his
positive identification as a co-principal. 
COMPLAINANT, Elpidio, and Paulino
knew him and could easily identify
him.  They belonged to the same
community of Sta. Lucia, Aringay, La
Union.  COMPLAINANT’s
house is half a kilometer from APPELLANT’s and the
latter used to go to her father’s house and see her there although they did not
talk to each other.^[19]
More significantly, before the incident complained of the malefactors were in COMPLAINANT’s house and she saw them there.  At the time the rape was committed,
COMPLAINANT, referring to the two accused testified that:  “I know they were the ones on top of
me”, and “I could recognize them because there is moon beam that passed through the window”.^[20]
She was face to face with each of them for about 5 minutes alternately while
they took turns in consummating their bestial desire.

The defense of alibi is totally futile from the fact that
APPELLANT was positively identified by the victim.^[21]
That the incident happened in accused ALCANTARA’s hut
all the more shows that no other person could have had the opportunity to take advantage of the COMPLAINANT, except the two accused who
were the only two men in the house^[22],
ALCANTARA being a widower.  APPELLANTS’s alibi that he ate supper and slept in Bernardo
Medina’s house is weak since that house only one kilometer away from ALCANTARA’s house and it was not physically impossible for
APPELLANT to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

Since the forcible abduction was used as a means of committing
the two rapes, the offenses constitute the complex crime of Forcible Abduction
with Rape, without any mitigating
circumstance since intoxication was not proven, nor any aggravating
circumstance, although none of these would really alter the nature of
the penalty to be imposed pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code.  Rape committed by two or more
persons, or with a deadly weapon, is punished by reclusion perpetua to death, while forcible abduction
is punished by reclusion temporal.  The penalty for Rape, as the more
serious offense, should be imposed in its maximum period, meaning that the
greater penalty, which is death, should be imposed.^[23]
For lack of the necessary votes, however, the penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.  APPELLANT should suffer two (2) reclusion perpetuas, as imposed by the
Trial Court, considering that there was
a conspiracy or community of design between the two accused to perpetrate the
crimes charged.

 The Trial Court, however, overlooked
the imposition of civil liability on APPELLANT, which is mandated by Art.
345(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and which we hereby fix at P12,000.00.^[24]

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower Court is hereby
affirmed, with the modification that appellant, Mauro Medina, should indemnify
Josefina Mangaoang in the amount of P12,000.00.

One-half of the costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exhibits “4” &
“3”, Original Record.

^[2]
T.s.n., March
21, 1968, p. 6.

^[3]
See t.s.n., December
6, 1967, pp. 15-17; t.s.n., December 20, 1967, pp. 3, 35-37.

^[4]
T.s.n., December 20, 1967, pp. 38 & 39.

^[5]
T.s.n., March 9, 1968, pp. 16 & 17.

^[6]
T.s.n., December
20, 1967, p. 33.

^[7]
T.s.n., May
16, 1972, p. 8.

^[8]
pp. 666 & 667, Original Record.

^[9]
T.s.n., December 6, 1967, pp. 35, 47.

^[10]
People vs. Zurbito, 115 SCRA
677 (1982).

^[11]
T.s.n., August 25, 1976, pp. 7 & 8.

^[12]
T.s.n., December
6, 1967, p. 16.

^[13]
People vs. Garcines, 57 SCRA
653 (1974); People vs. Cawili, 65 SCRA 24 (1975).

^[14]
T.s.n., February
27, 1967, p. 25.

^[15]
T.s.n., December
6, 1967, p. 21.

^[16]
People vs. Eguac, 80 SCRA
665 (1977).

^[17]
People vs. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 (1978).

^[18]
T.s.n., December 20, 1967, p. 34 or 608.

^[19]
T.s.n., January 6, 1972, pp. 6 & 7.

^[20]
T.s.n., December 20, 1967, pp. 3 & 33.

^[21]
People vs. Palapal, 114 SCRA
783 (1982); People vs. Sambili, 117 SCRA 312
(1982).

^[22]
T.s.n., December 20, 1967, pp. 28 & 29.

^[23]
Articles 48, 63(1), 335 and 342, Revised Penal Code; People vs.
Babasa, 97 SCRA 672, 682 (1980); People vs.
Jose, 37 SCRA 450, 475 & 476 (1971).

^[24]
People vs. Peña, 80 SCRA 589
(1977); People vs. Balbino, 121 SCRA 278
(1983).