THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. GODOFREDO QUINTAL Y SANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is a forcible abduction with rape case filed by the offended
party, Carol Dumrique, then a 17-year old coed of the
College of Commerce of Ortanez University, Cubao, Quezon City, in the
criminal complaint subscribed and sworn to by her on February 3, 1977 in Manila, Philippines before
Assistant Fiscal Arturo U. Barias, Jr., against her
instructor in Mathematics at said school, herein accused-appellant Godofredo Quintal y Santos, a middle-aged married man,
which reads as follows:

“The undersigned accuses GODOFREDO QUINTAL y SANTOS
of the crime of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE, committed as follows:

‘That on or about the 4th day of January 1977, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wil­fully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd designs, abduct the undersigned
complainant CAROL DUMRIQUE y MESA, by then and there threatening to fail her in
her Math 2B subject should she refuse to go with him, and by means of force and
intimidation, took her inside the taxi and brought her inside the Maya Theatre
of Quezon City and while inside said theatre,
administered drugged chocolate candies on her and then subsequently brought her
to the Rose Garden Motel where once inside the said motel, said accused had
carnal knowledge of her against her will when she was deprived of her full
possession of her mental faculties.’

“CONTRARY TO LAW.

s/t CAROL DUMRIQUE y MESA

Complainant”

The Assistant Fiscal having conducted an ex-parte
investigation in accordance with law, filed the
corresponding information against the accused for forcible abduction with rape
with the Circuit Criminal Court, Sixth Judicial District, Manila.  Upon arraignment, the accused, duly
represented by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.  Trial then proceeded and upon termination
thereof, the court rendered judgment against the accused as decreed in the dispositive portion, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused GODOFREDO QUINTAL guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape pursuant to the provisions of
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended and there being no mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance to off­set each other, the Court hereby imposes
upon the said accused the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to pay the
offended party the amount of P5,000.00 and the further
sum of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs.

“SO ORDERED.

“Manila, Philippines,
October 6, 1978.”

The version of the prosecution is succinctly summa­rized in the Appellee’s Brief as follows:

At the time of the incident the offended party, Carol Dumrique, was a 17-year old Commerce student at the Ortanez University
in Cubao, Quezon
City, single and residing with her uncle at Provident Village, Marikina, Metro
Manila.  She was then resi­ding in the
city for barely three months as she was
a transferee from the province
of Isabela
where her parents reside.  She came to
know of the accused-appellant because the latter was her professor in
Mathematics 2-B.  In fact, since November
of the previous year (1976) she has been invited no less than three times by
the accused-appellant to a merienda but she refused
because she had already a boy friend who was also studying in the same
school.  (pp. 6-10,
10-27, t.s.n., June 30, 1977).

“At about 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon of January 4, 1977,
the offended party was alone in Room 206 at the second floor of the school
building reviewing her test paper in Management when accused-appellant entered
the room and inquired from her what she was doing.  After answer­ing him, the offended party in
turn inquired from the accused-appellant the results of their examination in his subject.  The latter did not immediately answer, but
continued staring at the offended party for a long time and remarked:  “Hindi ka kasi
sumasama.” As the latter did not answer,
accused-appellant continued:  “You
cannot do anything.  All of those who are
here are members of my barkada.  You will still undergo two Mathematics
subjects under me.” Frightened, she consented when invited by the accused?appellant
for a merienda.  (pp. 11-20, 22-24, t.s.n., Ibid).

“From Ortanez
University, the two boarded a jeepney bound for Cubao, Quezon City.  Upon reaching the Banco
Filipino building in Cubao, the two alighted.  Whereupon, the accused-appellant hailed a
taxi, prompting the offended party to inquire:  “Sir, is it not that we are just
going to take a merienda?” Accused-appellant did
not answer.  Instead, he opened the
taxicab’s door and pushed the offended party inside.  Then, he ordered the taxicab driver to
proceed to Maya Theatre.  The offended party
did not shout to avoid a scandal. 
Besides, she did not foresee any immediate danger since the one taking
her to a movie was her professor.  Upon arriving thereat, accused-appellant
bought tickets, then took her to the lounge section where both sat on a
bench.  Shortly, thereafter,
accused-appellant lighted a cigarette and as he pressed her on the shoulder
told the offended party to smoke it, which she did as the former placed it into
her mouth.  This caused her to cough and
get dizzy.  Forthwith, accused-appellant
led her to a secluded section on the balcony where they took their seats.

“Accused-appellant, then pre­tending to relieve the offended
party of her dizziness, offered her a choco­late candy, which she ate
unsuspecting of the accused-appellant’s evil inten­tion.  Thereafter, accused-appellant gave her
another one which she also ate still believing that it was also intended to
relieve her further of her dizziness. 
Thereafter, the offended party already felt different.  She was feeling warm inside, and could no
longer control her feelings.  She did not
reveal this to the accused-appellant who must have sensed it just the same
because the former did not resist when he started stroking her.  Subsequently, accused-appellant gave her a
third candy, this time, directly from his mouth through kissing, as she already
lost control of her reason or will power. 
Taking advantage of her situation, accused-appellant started kissing her
and fondled her private parts, including her breasts for quite sometime.  Then accused-appellant invited the offended
party to leave, to which she did not object as she was no longer herself.  (pp. 28-32, 34-36, 54-56, t.s.n.,
Ibid).

“The two took a taxicab and proceeded
to the Rose Garden Motel, in Sta. Mesa, Manila.  Upon reaching the motel, they entered a room whereupon, the offended party proceeded to a bed and laid
down.  After closing the door,
accused-appellant sat beside her and gave her another candy, the fourth.  He also gave her a cigarette but she was not
able to smoke it because she was too dizzy that she fell from the bed, causing
her hips to hit the edge of a dresser. 
She tried to stand but she fell on the bed.  The accused-appellant then was beside
her.  He started undressing her slowly,
but before removing her panty, he fondled her breasts, and then gave her the
fifth chocolate candy.  The next thing
she knew was that accused-appellant was able to have carnal knowledge of
her.  She trembled with pain just as she
also noticed the accused-appellant tremble. 
This was repeated for four times; after which she laid down motionless
as she felt so weak to move.  (pp. 57-67,
t.s.n., June 30, 1977; pp. 4-9, t.s.n.,
July 13, 1977; pp. 3-6, t.s.n., September. 7, 1977).

“Before the offended party could regain her strength, accused-appellant
pulled her inside the bathroom and flushed her with water.  This made her feel alive (‘nabuhayan ako‘) until she
regained her normal feelings.  She
started to cry, but accused-appellant tried to stop her in order not to attract
attention.  And, believing that she was
worried about getting pregnant; accused-appellant teasingly told her that
“with two hundred pesos (P200.00), it could be removed.” Whereupon,
accused-appellant warned the offended party not to inform anybody about the
incident threatening to take her life, reminding her of her night classes and
of the two mathematics subjects she shall be taking under him.  Thereafter,
accused-appellant told her to dress up, and after advising her not to attract
the attention of anybody, they left the motel and took a taxicab for Cubao where accused-appellant alighted near the Farmer’s
Market.  From there the offended party
proceeded home to Provident Village
in the same taxicab.  (pp. 10-15; t.s.n., July 13, 1977; pp. 66-67, t.s.n.,
Aug. 9, 1977; pp. 10-15, t.s.n., Sept. 7, 1977).

“The offended party was not able to report the incident to
anybody because she did not know what to do. 
She attended her classes including her Mathematics class under the
accused-appellant.  Everytime
she met the accused-appellant in his classes, the latter would threaten to kill
her and reveal their affair to her boyfriend, should she not accede to his
wishes.  Because of these threats, she
was forced to meet the accused-appellant in front of the National Book Store in
Cubao at 10:00 o’clock
in the morning of January 8, 1977,
which was then a Saturday.  From there,
accused-appellant took her to the Rose Garden Motel, where the former again
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her for four times.  They left the motel at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon in order that she
could attend her classes (pp. 15-21, t.s.n., July 13, 1977; pp. 15-30, t.s.n., September
7, 1977; Exhibit ‘E’).

“That evening of January
8, 1977, accused-appellant had a drinking spree with the offended
party’s boyfriend, Jesus Tolentino, to whom the
former must have divulged his affair with the offended party.  Because of that, Tolentino
waited for the offended party to come out of her last class and invited her for
a talk which she accepted.  They proceeded
to Barrio Fiesta Restau­rant in Cubao where Tolentino confronted her about her affair with the
accused-appellant.  At first, she denied,
but had to admit it after a long argument. 
As a result, Tolentino spanked her and
forcibly brought her to his residence at St. Ignatius Village, in Quezon City, where the former also succeeded in having
carnal knowledge of her for seven times. 
He also told his board mates to take their turns, but they took pity on
her and refrained from molesting her. 
(pp. 21-27, t.s.n., July 13, 1977; pp. 30-32,
37-51, t.s.n., Sept. 7, 1977; Exhibit ‘E’).

“It was already 4:30 o’clock
in the morning of the following day (January
9, 1977) that the offended party was able to leave the place of Tolentino.  Instead
of proceeding home, she went to Cubao where she
boarded a taxicab.  And, because she was
already so weak and did not know what to do, the driver brought her to Vito
Cruz where somebody by the name of Gerry Ibañez saw
her and took pity on her.  Ibañez took her to a lady cousin who resides in Pasay City.  She stayed there until January 13, 1977, when
she decided to go home upon the advice of Ibanez and his cousin, who both
convinced her that no other person could help her better than her own
relatives.  As soon as she arrived home,
she learned that her uncle and aunt were looking for her while she was away.  That
same afternoon, they accompanied her to Camp
Crame to
report what happened to her.  After
investigation, she was told to go to the NBI for medical examination, which she
did the following day (January 15, 1977 – sic:  January 14, 1977 per Exhibit ‘B’) in company of her aunt. 
Then she returned to Camp
Crame to
give her sworn statements wherein she narrated how she was sexually abused by
the accused-appel­lant and her former boyfriend, Jesus Tolentino
(Exhibit ‘E’).  Aside from the criminal
complaint against the accused-appellant, she also filed administrative charges
against him with the President of Ortanez Univer­sity,
the Assistant Dean of the Department of Commerce of the same university, and
also with the Bureau of Higher Education. 
A formal inves­tigation,
was conducted at the University; as a result of which, accused-appellant was no
longer allowed to teach (pp. 27­-57, t.s.n., July 13, 1977).”

Dr. Rodolfo Lesondra, NBI Medico-Legal
Officer, pursuant to a request for medico-legal assistance for the alleged
crime of rape committed on the
offended party, examined her and after the examination, the doctor prepared the
following report (Exhibit ‘B’):

“Living Case No. MG-77-34

Subject: 
name – Carol Dumrique y Mesa

age    – 17 years old

Alleged Case:  RAPE

Commission:   4 January 1977
at the Rose Garden Motel, Sta. Mesa, Manila
and 8 January 1977 at No.
17 Riverdale Street, St.
Ignatius Village,
Quezon City,
Metro Manila.

FINDINGS

GENERAL PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION;

“Normally developed, fairly nourished, conscious, coherent,
cooperative, ambulatory, afebrile subject.

“Breasts in early stage of development,
conical, doughy in consistency.  Araeola, light
brown, 2.0 centimeters in diameter. 
Nipples, protruding, pinkish brown, 0.6 centimeters in
diameter.”

EXTRAGENITAL PHYSICAL
INJURY:

“Abrasion, healed recently, left
supra-gluteal region 2.5 x 6 centimeters, with bright
reddish pink central portion and with brown scab which readily falls off on
manipulation.”

GENITAL EXAMINATION:

“Pubic hairs, fine,
short, and with scanty growth.  Labia mejora, plump, moist, coaptated.  Labia minora, pinkish, moist, coaptated.  Four-chetted, tense.  Vestibular mucosa, moist
and pinkish.  Hymen, moderately
wide, thick, with healing lacerations complete at 3:00 o’clock, deep at 9:00
o’clock positions, corresponding to the face of a watch.  Edges of these lacerations are bright red, coaptated, and when separated reveals a V-shaped base which
are bright red and slightly congested.  Hymenal orifice annular, admits a
glass tube 2.8 centimeters in diameter with moderately marked resistance.  Vaginal walls tight.  Rugosities, prominent.  Cervice small,
closed, hard.”

CONCLUSIONS:

“1.  Extra-genital physical injury described above
noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination, age of which is
compatible with the alleged date of infliction.

“2.  Genital findings present compatible with
sexual intercourse with man on or about the alleged dates of commission.”

Dr. Lesondra further testified that
there were no traces of male semen found in the offended party’s vagina due to
the long intervening period from the dates of the rapes complained of and the
NBI medico-legal assistance conducted; that the abrasion located at the
complainant’s left buttock could have been caused by contact with a hard or
rough object or surface; that the complete laceration of the complainant’s
hymen at 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock positions is compatible with the alleged
time or date of the acts complained of; and that he is of the opinion that the
victim was physically a virgin prior to the acts complained of (i.e.,
that her hymen was intact prior to the
rape although it does not necessarily mean that she has had no previous sexual
experience since it is possible that the hymen might still be intact despite
previous sexual knowledge).

The version of the defense tends to show voluntarines
on the part of the complainant in going with the accused-appellant to the
movies on the 4th of January 1977
and that their sexual interlude at the Rose Garden Motel imme­diately
thereafter was not one which constitutes rape. 
Thus, the defense, in its Brief, recites the following version:

“Appellant testified that he knew the complaining witness since
she is her student in Math 2-B from November 1976; that at 3:00 p.m., January
4, 1977 he was at the Ortanez University compound and
at 4:00 p.m. of the same date, he entered his classroom which is Room 206 to
meet his students in Mathematics; that he has few students who were present and around five minutes after he
arrived, complaining witness went inside his classroom and joined the class but
because of the number of absences he decided to dismiss them; that while inside
the classroom he talked to complainant in the presence of his students and when
his students left leaving her behind he jokingly invited her to see a movie and
that they will meet at the National Book Store, after saying that he left and
proceeded to the Office of the Vice?President where he stayed for about
five minutes; that he then went to the National Book Store, Cubao,
Quezon City; 
that he did not threaten to fail com­plaining witness or forced to go
down the Ortanez University; that when he arrived at
the book store, he saw her and they have a short conversation; that they walked
from said store to the International Drug Store around 100 meters away to get a
ride; that they boarded a bus bound for Caloocan and
both of them alighted infront of the Grand Theatre
along E. de los Santos Ave., Cubao,
Quezon City; that upon alighting from the bus they
went to the lobby of said
theater to look for the pictures being shown which she did not like, so they
went walking to Maya Theater also along E. de los
Santos Ave., Cubao, Quezon
City, just around 200 meters away; that when they reached Maya Theater they
bought two orchestra seat tickets; that from Ortañez
University and all the places where they went or passed up to Maya theater
there were many people as well as Security
Guards and Policemen; that they then went up to the mezzanine floor using the
stairs and upon reaching said floor, he gave her P2.00 to buy peanuts but there
was none at the store so he suggested to buy chocolate instead and she bought
Nips chocolate; that at the ground floor of Maya theater up to the mezzanine
floor there were people around and on the ground floor there were guards; that
after she bought Nips chocolate, she went to the comfort room while he waited
for her near the person who collects the tickets for orchestra seats; that when
complaining witness came out of the comfort room there were people in the
mezzanine and they passed by the person who collects the tickets of the
orchestra seats; that he did (not) force her to smoke at the lounging area of
the theater or forced her to eat chocolate candy and the seats near them were
occupied by other movie goers; that after they were seated, he placed his right
hand over her shoulder and finding no reaction, he lowered it to her right side
and again there was no reaction so he tried to put his hand over her breast but
she removed it by a jirk.

“That after around 2 minutes, he tried again to put his hand on her breast, this time she
held it and she gave by hand a Nips chocolate candy which she bought in the store at the mezzanine of the
theater which he accepted also by hand, then another for the second by the same
manner and the third one, which she gave it to him by the mouth and he received
it also by the mouth.

“That he suggested to her to go out because it is very shameful
(embarrassing) for doing such in the place where there are many
people but she did not answer and they went out of the movie after staying for
around 35 minutes.

“That while they were going out there were many people that they
have passed; that from the Maya theater they walked towards New York street to
the direction of Caloocan and while walking they
passed many people; that they walked towards said street because he suggested
that they go to a private place; that at the corner of New York and E. de los Santos Ave. there was a police outpost and a policeman
was conducting traffic at the time; that when they boarded a taxi, appellant
directed the driver to bring them to the Rose Garden Motel which is located at
Sta. Mesa, Manila; that she entered the taxi voluntarily and she did not
attempt to get out; that while inside the taxi she asked him where they are
going and he told her that they will go to the Rose Garden Motel; that she did
not make any protest when he told her where they will go; that in going to the
motel they passed by several vehicles and pedestrians along Aurora Blvd., where
they passed; that while inside the taxi they were holding hands.

“That when they reached the motel they were allowed to enter
by a male person and at the gate there was a guard; that she did not make any
pro­test; that they alighted at the motel compound where there were people and and they walked to the motel to regis­ter; that while
registering there were motel personnel around and when they went to the room
they were accompanied by a personnel of the motel.

“That while inside the motel room they sat on the bed; that he
did (not) force her to smoke or eat cho­colate candy; that it was she who took
his cigarette when he placed it in the ashtray and puffed it; that for around
two minutes they had a conversation and after that he tried to kiss her; that
she did not protest and she also kissed him so they embraced each other
kissing; that he suggested to her to remove her dress because it might be
crumpled, which she did alone and after she removed her dress they started
kissing each other again while already lying on bed; that she removed her bra
and panty, he also removed his clothes and brief then they had sexual
intercourse without any protest from her; that after they had intercourse she
went to the comfort room still naked and after coming out she lie down beside
him and they were kissing again.

“That after they were kissing each other, he sat down and took
a cigarette; that they had a conversation and have the second intercourse which
lasted about 2 to 3 minutes, then another conversation about their plan on
their next date on January 8, 1977 while they were still naked; that they were
kissing again and after which they have again the third intercourse; that she
went to the comfort room for the second time and when she came out they had a
conversation that they will go home and they both dressed up.

“That he did not threaten her while inside the motel and she
was in her natural condition while in the taxi going to the motel and when they
entered the motel; that in going out they asked the permission of the motel
personnel and when they asked said permission she was beside him; that they
walked in going out of the motel compound, passed the guard at the gate and
when they were already at the street they hailed a taxi and boarded it for
Provident Village, Marikina; that she did not
complain to the motel personnel, guard or the taxi driver; that upon reaching
the gate of Provident Village, he alighted from the taxi because she did not
want her auntie to see them.

“That he did not threaten her; that he has many friends in the
school and she could vanish easily, or meaning, to kill her; that she is close
to him since November 19, 1976 and said relationship has not changed after
January 4, 1977; that the following day January 5, 1977 she attended her class
with him in Math and on January 7, 1977 he met her and talked to her and on
both occasions she was in her natural way.

“That on January 8, 1977 at 10:00 a.m., a Saturday, they met
at the National Book Store, Cubao, Quezon City, the date, time and place they agreed to meet
on January 4, 1977 at the Rose Garden Motel; that she even arrived ahead of
him; that in the place where they met there were many people, security guards
as well as policemen; that when they met, she was in her normal way but in a
hurry because according to her, her auntie is going to Cubao
and she might see us (sic) that is why we had to go to Aurora Boulevard.

“That in going to Aurora Blvd., they passed by the alley of
business establish­ments crowded with people, guards and policemen; that upon
reaching Aurora Blvd., he hailed a taxi infront of Banco Filipino where there were security guards and many
pedestrians and when the taxi stopped she opened the door, entered first and he
followed; that when they were already inside the taxi, she was very happy for
having avoided her auntie.

“That from Cubao to the Rose Garden
Motel the taxi passed along Aurora Blvd., which at the time, traffic was heavy;
that in getting inside the motel compound they passed by the security guard at
the gate and a person opened the door for them; that all this time she was
happy and made no sign of protest.

“That while he was registering she never attempted to get out;
that on that date they stayed in the motel from 10:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. where
they had conversation, kissing and sexual intercourse; that in getting out of
the motel they asked the permission of the motel personnel and they walked
towards the street passing the guard at the gate.

“That when they reached the street they boarded a taxi for Cubao, Quezon City and he
alighted at the gasoline station near Ortanez
University while she went home to Marikina; that at
around 5:30 in the afternoon of the same day he saw her at the Ortanez Uni­versity acting in her normal way strol­ling at
the second floor after their short conversation.

“That she filed
this case against him because her boyfriend, Jesus Tolentino
got mad at her when he learned or found in her notebook the word “Lyndiol,” a name of a pill for birth control; that Tolentino told her
that he (appellant) revealed what happened between us (sic).

“That Tolentino brought her to a Cubao restaurant then to his house; that Tolentino spanked her
and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly.”

In convicting the accused for the crime of rape, the court said
that:  “This version of the accused
is quite unbelievable not only because the victim is pictured as a sex-starved
young girl but also worse than a prostitute, who, with everything in her power
will arouse a man to the height of his passion even in a crowded place in order
to get what she wants.  She is shown to
be even lower than a common prostitute, a tempting Jesebel
and a hussy who made all the aggressive moves to consummate their
intercourse.  But even assuming that this
unfounded allusions on the character and behavior of the victim is true, the
Court can (not) but condemn the accused, a professor in a university, a married
man and who because of his age, could be considered a father to the victim, to
take liberties on the body of his young student in a public place and in the
presence of many people.  Also, as an
instructor and teacher, it is his obligation to guide and counsel his students
on what is right, on what should be, on what ought to be.  As a teacher, he should be a model of good
behavior and morality.  His conduct alone
is the best evidence to show his depraved manner and which the Court can (not)
but condemn.  His behavior, in putting
the victim in a situation in which he took liberties on her body, more than
speak clearly and con­vincingly that his intentions towards her were not moral
but on the contrary, immoral and depraved. 
Sad to say that the accused even came to realize later that what they
were doing inside the theater was shameful. 
Was it really his realization that his intentions while carressing the victim in the presence of many (people) was
shameful?  Or was it because his passion
was already aroused to a height that his lust must be satisfied, so that he has
to suggest their leaving the theater?  Or
was it because he already came to realize that the victim has become an easy
prey of his human desires and lust?  Or
yet, was it because the accused know that after giving the victim chocolates to
eat and cigarette to smoke, her passion was already aroused so that she could
no longer resist him?  The answers to
these questions find more meaning in the version of the victim herself.”

Justifying its conviction of rape against the accused-appellant,
the trial court recounted the evidentiary basis in the following wise and
manner:

“The victim had categorically declared she was given chocolate
no less than three times before copulation and made to smoke cigarette also
twice, in addition to the fact that the accused made threats at her.  All these in effect, had deprived the victim
of her reason, weakened her resistance which the accused took advantage of in
order to satisfy his lustful and animal desires.  The Court believes that the three pieces of
choco­late given to the victim which she ate, as well as the cigarette she was
made to smoke, contained drugs which caused her to be dizzy, weak and had also
aroused her passion.  At the motel, after
taking the third chocolate, her physical condition worsened causing her to fall
off the bed. 
The condition in which the victim was in, could
not make her offer any effective resistance to any actual assault on her person
and virtue.”

As earlier indicated, the accused-appellant was found guilty of
rape and sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA; to pay the offended party the amount
of P5,000.00 and the further sum of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay
the costs.  The court found no sufficient
evidence that there was a forcible abduction of the victim.  The evidence presented by the prosecution
does not even show that the personal liberty of the victim was violated for the
same is the essence or nature of the crime. 
The evidence shows that the victim went voluntarily with the accused
when invited to take merienda until she was given
chocolates and made to smoke, the effects of which after eating and smoking has
deprived her of her resistance when she was raped.”

On appeal, accused-appellant assigns the following errors:

I

“The lower court erred in finding that the evidence presented constitute the crime of rape.

II

“The lower court erred in disregarding the motive in the
filing of the case.”

Article 335, Revised Penal Code, provides when and how rape is
committed, to wit:

“Art. 335.  When and how
rape 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,
even though neither of the circums­tances mentioned in the two next preceding
paragraphs shall be present.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of deadly weapon
or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.  (As amended by Rep. Act No.
2632 and Rep. Act No. 4111).”

There is no question that rape is a most detestable crime and
should, therefore, be severely and impartially punished.  But a rape charge is easy to make, hard to
prove and harder to defend by the party accused, though innocent.  (Cornelio Flores, 26 Phil. 262, 268; Ignacio Landicho, 8 ACR 580; Rafael Lacson,
CA 53 O.G. 1823; Fran­cisco Salvador, CA 52 O.G. 7290; Lago,
CA 45 O.G. 1356; Barbo, 56 SCRA 459).  Experience has shown that unfounded charges
of rape have frequently been preferred by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior
or undisclosed motive.  Convictions for
such crime should not be sustained without clear and convincing proof of
guilt.  (Bay, 27 Phil. 495; Pantaleon Ramos, 35 Phil. 671; Brocal,
CA 36 O.G. 857; Topacio, CA
36 O.G. 1358).  On more than one occasion
it has been pointed out that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the
injured woman should not be received with precipitate credulity.  When the conviction depends on any vital
point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her
sincerity and candor are free from suspicion. 
A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in judging matters
of this kind.  (Fernando Fausto, 51 Phil. 852) (See The Revised Penal Code, Vol.
III, 1977 Edition, pp. 1679-1680, by Justice Ramon Aquino).

There are three (3) well-known principles that guide an appellate
court in reviewing the evidence presented in a prosecution for the crime of rape and these are:  (1) that an accusation for rape can be made
with facility; it is difficult to prove it but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) that in view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.

In the light of the above considerations and after a careful and
conscientious study, analysis and review of the prosecution evidence, We have come to the conclusion that the government has not
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.  There is merit to the contention of the
accused-appellant that the act of sexual intercourse he had admittedly with the
offended party does not consti­tute the crime of rape because he did it with
the consent of the latter, there being no evidence showing that he used force
or intimidation nor was the offended party deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious.  There are indeed a number
of facts and circumstances that belie the claim of the offended party that she was raped by the accused-appellant in the
manner testified to by her:

1.   That the complainant, after having been raped
on January 4 by the accused as charged in the information, did again meet with
him four days subsequently on January 8, 1977 at the National Book Store in Cubao, Quezon City at 10:00
o’clock a.m. and thereafter both proceeded to the Rose Garden Motel where they
had sexual intercourse four times,
leaving the motel only at about 3:00 o’clock p.m., at which occasion the
complainant never complained of threats, intimidation nor of having been given
chocolate candy to eat or cigarette to smoke and, therefore, con­sented freely
and voluntarily to such repeated sexual pleasure, cannot but indicate serious
doubt and suspicion to her claim of rape at the first instance, that is four
days earlier at the same motel on January 4, 1977.  It is quite improbable that the victim of an
alleged rape would consent so soon to another tryst with the rapist and enjoy
sexual gratification with him, unless she had previously given herself to him
freely and easily on an earlier occa­sion. 
For her now to claim that she was ravished and deflowered under threats
and intimidation by the accused-appellant who allegedly told her that she had
two Mathe­matics subjects under him, cannot be believed.  Such a conduct simply is diametrically
opposed to what is expected and is normal to a girl whose virtue had been
destroyed, her honor ruined, for then she would have been furious, bitter and
resentful against him who had violated her.

2.   That in the evening of January 8, 1977, the
complainant met with her boyfriend, Jesus Tolentino,
who brought her to his residence at St. Ignatius Village, Quezon
City where he had sexual intercourse with her for seven times, indicates the
laxity of complainant’s moral behavior, detracting from the traditional and
proverbial modesty and decency of the Filipina.

3.   The delay in subjecting the complainant to a
medical examination which took place eleven (11) days after the sex assault and
the lack of proof that the cho­colate candies taken by her were really
“drugged” reflect the weakness of the prosecution evidence.

The conclusion is inevitable that the complainant was not
sexually assaulted against her will but that she yielded her honor and virtue
willingly.

The original information
filed against the accused-appellant was for forcible abduction with rape.  The trial court acquitted him of the forcible
abduction charge, there being no showing that the personal liberty of the
victim was violated when she accepted the invitation of the ac­cused-appellant
to take merienda with him and thereafter proceeded to the motel in Sta. Mesa, Manila. 
While there is proof that the complainant was a virgin, above twelve
years of age and below eighteen years at the time and the facts and
circumstances on record show the commission of the crime of consented abduction,
the failure in the infor­mation to allege these vital elements do not warrant a
conviction for consented abduction under the present infor­mation (See Art.
343, Revised Penal Code; Valdepeña vs. People, 16
SCRA 871; Barba vs. People, 89 SCRA 112; People vs.
Castro, 58 SCRA 473; People vs. Samillano, 56 SCRA
573; People vs. Magat, 94 Phil. 118; People vs.
Ernesto Sison, G.R. No. L-45857, Oct.
27, 1983).  The prosecution should file the corresponding
valid information for consented abduction against the accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF
ALL THE FOREGOING, the accused-appellant Godofredo
Quintal y Santos is hereby ACQUITTED.  Costs de oficio.

His immediate release is hereby ordered unless he is held for
some other valid charges.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, De
Castro, and Escolin,
JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., dissents for reason stated in the opinion of Judge Felix B.
Barbers.  The rule is where the ability
to resist is taken away by the administering drugs, even though the woman may
be conscious, sexual intercourse with her is rape (75, C.J.S. 480).  One should not ignore the fact that the girl
was only 17 years old and that the accused was her professor.