PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AVELINO ISAAC Y BURSE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Isaac

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Avelino Isaac, a criminal prosecution for rape. The complainant, Zosima Antonio, was thirteen years old when the alleged crime was committed. The accused admitted having carnal knowledge with her but claimed she was his sweetheart and consented. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the settled rules on the sufficiency of the complainant's lone testimony, on the absence of external injuries, and on the weight of an extrajudicial confession — rules that examiners test again and again in criminal law and evidence.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Seventh Judicial District, Caloocan City. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act Number 4111, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning a single error.

Facts

On the evening of July 15, 1970, at around seven o'clock, Zosima Antonio was tending her family's store in Caloocan City with her twelve year old crippled and invalid sister. Avelino Isaac and a companion, Marcelino Magtoto, arrived. Magtoto ordered food and then left. Isaac entered the store, blocked Zosima from going out, grabbed and embraced her, and fondled her breast. She resisted and freed herself, but he pursued her, embraced her again, laid her on an improvised bed, covered her mouth, and told her not to shout or he would strangle her. He removed her panty, inserted his private part into hers, and moved for about two minutes. He then stood up, warned her not to report the incident or he would kill her, and left.

About ten minutes later, Zosima's mother and grandmother arrived, and she told her mother what had happened. Her mother and grandmother went to the Congressional Subdivision where the accused was staying. When her mother returned, she was with Cesar Billones, Calixto Rivera, and Zosima's father. Zosima also saw the accused with blood on his head. The crowd mauled him, and Calixto Rivera hacked him with a bolo. He was brought to the Caloocan City General Hospital for treatment, and then to the City Hall, where his statement was taken.

The accused denied rape but admitted carnal knowledge, insisting that Zosima was his sweetheart and had voluntarily submitted. He claimed she invited him inside the store, pulled him down, removed her own panty, and that they made love for thirty minutes without resistance, after which she boiled water and prepared him a glass of milk. The trial court rejected this as a fantastic story, finding force and intimidation, and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused may be convicted on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
• Whether or not the failure of the complainant to shout for help, despite three persons passing by the store, negates the charge of rape.
• Whether or not the absence of external or extra-genital injuries on the complainant negates rape.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused affects the outcome of the appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 4111, is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted:

Article 335. When and how 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 or is demented.

The case turns on the first circumstance — force or intimidation — which the trial court found present and which the accused denied by claiming consent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the fact that Zosima's story was uncorroborated does not in any way lessen her credibility. Citing its earlier rulings, the Court categorically held that the accused may be convicted on the sole basis of the complainant's testimony. It stressed that Zosima was only thirteen years old and could not have concocted a story of rape, much less acted the way the accused pictured her behavior.

On the second issue, the Court found no merit in the argument that passersby would have noticed force. The accused was twenty-one years old, and the tender years of the victim allowed him to frighten and subdue her easily. The Court agreed with the trial court that her failure to yell for help was explained by the fact that her mouth was covered and she was threatened with strangulation. Her immediate report to her mother on the same night negated voluntary submission, and the indignation of the crowd that ran after the accused was likewise significant.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of injuries by itself does not negate rape. What is material is whether force and intimidation were exerted, and the Court found they were. The trial court also noted that the temporary medical certificate showed abrasions and contusions on her body when she was brought to the hospital.

On the fourth issue, the Court noted that the accused had executed an extrajudicial confession admitting his guilt, and that he questioned its admissibility by claiming it was not read to him. The trial court rejected this as a self-serving claim that did not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. The Court observed that on appeal the accused did not raise this as an issue, and that the confession was taken in 1970 before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. In any event, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the exclusion of the confession would not matter at all.

Doctrine

First, the accused may be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the complainant's testimony; lack of corroboration does not lessen her credibility. Second, the absence of external or extra-genital injuries does not negate rape, because what is material is whether force or intimidation was exerted. Third, the failure of the victim to shout for help is explained where her mouth was covered and she was threatened, especially where the offender took advantage of his superior strength over a victim of tender years. Fourth, an immediate report of the incident to a parent negates voluntary submission. Fifth, a self-serving claim that an extrajudicial confession was not read to the accused does not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, and where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, the exclusion of the confession would not matter.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decision was affirmed with the modification that the appellant was ordered to pay an indemnity of 25,000 pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: the accused may be convicted on the sole basis of the complainant's testimony, and the absence of injuries by itself does not negate rape. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of lone testimony, the significance of the victim's failure to shout, and the weight of an uncounselled extrajudicial confession taken before the 1973 Constitution.