THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LICERIO (alias FELIX TOANQUIN) DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Licerio

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a prosecution for rape. The People of the Philippine Islands charged Licerio, also known as Felix Toanquin, with having carnal knowledge of a young woman named Felisa Reyes by means of force and violence. The accused admitted the sexual act but claimed it was consensual, so the case turns on a single question of fact and law: whether force and violence were proven. The decision matters to a Bar candidate because it shows how the Supreme Court treats the elements of rape, how it weighs the accused's improbable defense of a lovers' tryst, and how it corrects an improperly conditioned civil indemnity.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the Court of First Instance of Abra. That court found the appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to an indeterminate period running from eight years and one day of prisión mayor to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusión temporal, with the accessories prescribed by law. It also ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 500 pesos, but only in case she should have an offspring, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the evidence and the assignments of error and modified the judgment as to the indemnity while affirming the conviction.

Facts

At about two o'clock in the afternoon of November 27, 1933, in the municipality of Tayum, Province of Abra, Felisa Reyes was alone in her house resting on a bed. She heard the door creak, rose, and crossed the living room, where she met the appellant already in the middle of the room. When she asked what he wanted, he seized her by the arms, covered her mouth with his hand, and threw her down on the bed. He placed himself on top of her and, by means of force, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. He then hurried away, leaving her weak and dizzy.

Her uncle arrived shortly thereafter and found her in bed, crying. She told him the appellant had ravished her. He fetched her mother, Eleuteria Tadeo, who found the complainant still crying, perspiring profusely, and bleeding. A doctor was sent for, but because he was in another town, no physical examination was made until the next day, November 28, 1933.

The appellant admitted the sexual intercourse but claimed the complainant had been in love with him, had invited him to her house, and had even fondled him to arouse his desire. The Court found this story incredible. The complainant denied any love affair. The Court noted the signs of finger grips on her neck, arms, forearms, cheeks, and around her mouth, and that her garments were torn and heavily stained with blood. It also observed that the appellant was the chief of police of the municipality and was of greater stature and size than the injured girl.

Issues

• Whether or not the sexual intercourse was accomplished through force and violence on the part of the appellant, so as to constitute rape.
• Whether or not the appellant's defense that the complainant was his sweetheart and invited him is credible.
• Whether or not the award of indemnity conditioned on the birth of an offspring is proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the law on rape under the old Penal Code, which defines the crime as having carnal knowledge of a woman by means of force or violence. The Court's discussion centers on the element of force:

El que tuviere acceso carnal con una mujer, empleando fuerza o violencia, será castigado con la pena de reclusión temporal.

This provision bears on the case because the appellant admitted the carnal knowledge, leaving force or violence as the only contested element, which the Court found fully established.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the employment of force was established not only by the testimony of the injured girl but also by the physical signs: finger grips on the front part of her neck, on her arms and forearms, on her cheeks and around her mouth, and by the fact that the garments worn at the time were torn and heavily stained with blood. The judgment of conviction was therefore fully made out.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the appellant's theory of a lovers' tryst. It found it highly improbable that a young country girl who had never had sexual relations would invite a married man to her house and offer herself to him, or would be so corrupt as to touch his private part to arouse him. The Court also found it surprising that, if the meeting had been planned, he would have hesitated and needed his desire awakened. It further noted the inconsistency of an alleged signal from the girl when there was supposedly a previous agreement, especially since the signal was made in the presence of another person.

On the third issue, the Court held that the requirement to indemnify the injured girl in the amount of 500 pesos should be made absolute, and not subject to the condition that it be paid only in case there should be an offspring. It also sentenced the appellant to support the offspring, should there be any.

Doctrine

Force and violence in rape may be established by the testimony of the offended party corroborated by physical evidence, such as finger grips on the neck, arms, cheeks, and mouth, and torn and bloodstained garments. The defense of a lovers' tryst is unavailing where it rests on improbable assertions that contradict human experience and the evidence on record. The civil indemnity for the offended party is absolute and not conditioned on the birth of an offspring, although the accused may separately be ordered to support any offspring.

Disposition

The judgment of conviction was affirmed with costs against the appellant, but modified so that the indemnity of 500 pesos is absolute rather than conditioned on the birth of an offspring, and the appellant was also sentenced to support any offspring.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that force and violence are proven by the physical signs on the victim's body and her torn, bloodstained garments, and that the sweetheart defense collapses against improbability. Examiners use this case to test the elements of rape, the credibility of the lovers' tryst defense, and the rule that civil indemnity is absolute and not conditional on the birth of a child.