PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NARCISO ISIP, JR. ALIAS “KULAPO”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Maria Eva Sarah C. Suing instituted a criminal complaint for rape
against Narciso Isip, Jr. which read as follows:

“That on or about the 16th of March, 1984, in barangay San
Nicolas, municipality of Masantol, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused NARCISO
ISIP, JR. alias ‘Kulapo’, armed with a knife, with lewd designs, by means of
force, threats and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and maliciously have carnal knowledge with the under­signed
complainant, Maria Eva Sarah C. Suing, against her will and without her
consent.

All contrary to law.”^[1]

After trial, the court a quo found the accused
Narciso Isip, Jr. guilty. The
dispositive portion of the judgment of conviction dated 13 February 1985
provides:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the
accused, Narciso Isip, Jr. alias ‘Kulapo’, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Rape as charged in the Criminal Complaint and as defined and
penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused did not prove or establish any
mitigating circumstances, and based on the established evidence of the case,
the accused should be punished with the supreme penalty of death. However, on account of the age of the
accused, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, opted to impose the
lesser penalty of life imprisonment. Accordingly, the said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, to
indemnify the offended party, Maria Eva Sarah C. Suing, the amount of
P50,000.00, Philippine Currency, in moral damages and to pay costs.”^[2]

The evidence of the prosecution tended to establish the following
facts:

In the afternoon of 16 March 1984, Maria Eva, who was fifteen
(15) years old, single and a third-year high school student at the Pampanga
Colleges, Macabebe, visited a number of her friends residing in the
Municipalities of Macabebe and Masantol, Province of Pampanga, to invite them
to her birthday party scheduled for 18 March 1984. Around 6:00 o’clock in the evening while waiting for a tricycle
ride at Sta. Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga, Maria Eva saw Cristina Tuquero, who
lived near their house. Cristina asked
Maria Eva to accompany her across the bridge of Sta. Lucia, Masantol, and Maria
Eva agreed. After they had crossed the
bridge, someone whistled at them and they stopped. A man, who turned out to be the accused Narciso Isip, Jr.
approached and asked Cristina Tuquero, whom he evidently knew, to introduce him
to Maria Eva. After the introduction,
the accused handed Cristina Tuquero a small plastic package containing
marijuana. The accused also brought out
a stick of marijuana which he lighted up and pressed Maria Eva to smoke the
same. Maria Eva did so and promptly
felt dizzy, that being the first time she had ever smoked marijuana. The accused and Cristina then invited Maria
Eva inside a house, which turned out to be the Barangay Tanod
Headquarters. Inside the house, they
found a male companion of the accused, one Wilfredo Bonifacio. There, the accused opened a bottle of White
Castle Whiskey and pressed Maria Eva to drink of the same. After the bottle of whiskey was finished,
the accused then produced a bottle of Hylorin cough syrup. Once more, Maria Eva was pressed to drink of
the cough syrup. She refused, but
Cristina advised her to do so for otherwise Narciso Isip, Jr. would get very
angry. Finally, Maria Eva took some of
the cough syrup. The mixture of
marijuana, hard liquor and cough syrup proved a very potent one, and Maria Eva
passed out.

When she regained her senses, she found herself lying naked
beside the accused who was also naked, inside a room of the Central Elementary
School of Masantol, Pampanga. Maria
Eva’s description of the events which followed forthwith is as follows:

“Q:  What was your feeling when you regained
consciousness, naked, besides Narciso Isip, Jr. likewise naked?

A:    My hypogastric
region (puson) was painful, sir, and my whole body was likewise painful.

Q: What else transpired inside that room at
Masantol Elementary School when you regained your consciousness, naked,
together with Narciso Isip, Jr.?

A:    He pointed to me a bladed weapon, sir. (Patalim)

Q: Did Narciso Isip, Jr. tell you anything
after he pointed to you that bladed weapon.

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:    What did he tell you?

A:    That I should not shout otherwise I would be
killed, sir.

Q:    What did you feel when he uttered those
threatening remarks against you?

A:    I was frightened, sir.

Q:    Then what did Narciso Isip, Jr. do after he
pointed to you that bladed weapon?

A:    He placed his body on top of my body, sir.

Q:    When he placed his body on top of yours,
what did he do?

A:    He placed his penis inside my vagina, sir.

Q:    How was he able to insert his sexual organ
inside your vagina?

A:    He compelled me and I was trying to close my
knees but he was opening the same, sir.

Q:    Did you not try to kick him?

A:    I tried but I was already weak and that I
was frightened.”^[3]

After the accused had satisfied his sexual desires, he told Maria
Eva to get dressed and warned her not to tell anyone what had happened,
otherwise she and her parents would be killed. The appellant then walked the complainant to the plaza of Masantol,
Pampanga, where she took a tricyle which brought her to the plaza of Macabebe,
Pampanga. From there, she walked to her
parents’ home in San Isidro, Macabebe, but finding that her parents were
already asleep, she went instead to her grandmother’s house in Sta. Rosario,
Macabebe, where she spent the night.

Maria Eva did not immediately report to her parents what had
befallen her. On the evening of 25
March 1984, however, complainant’s mother noticed her crying and asked her what
had happened. Overcoming her reluctance
to reveal her ordeal, Maria Eva finally told her mother that she had been raped
last 16 March 1984. The next day, 26
March 1984, Maria Eva accompanied by her mother went to the police authorities
of Masantol, Pampanga and reported the rape.

Complainant was then medically examined at the Central Luzon
General Hospital by Dr. Cynthia Alfonso, a resident physician of the hospital
who issued a medical certificate dated 29 March 1984 which read:

“This is to certify that one MARIA EVA SARAH SUING, 15 years
of age, female, single, from San Isidro, Macabebe, Pampanga, was physically and
internally examined in this hospital last March 28, 1984 with the following
findings:

I.       Mentality                      – normal

II.       HEENT                        – no evidence of
external physical injury

III. CHEST                       – no sign of external
physical injury

Breast                  – well developed

Nipple                   –
brownish no milk upon expression

Areola                  – brownish

IV.      Abdomen                     –
no sign of external physical injury

V.      Extremeties                 –
no sign of external physical injury

VI.      Perineum:

Pubic hair             – scanty

Labia majora and minora – well
coaptated

Hymenal Laceration 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11
o’clock (superficial healed laceration)

Deep
healed laceration at 3 o’clock

Vagina
admits 1 finger with ease; two fingers with difficulty

VII.     Pregnancy test            – negative

VIII.    Smear for spermatozoa
– none found.”^[4]

The appellant’s version of the facts is substantially the
following. At 5:00 o’clock p.m., on 16
March 1984, the accused saw two (2) ladies crossing the bridge, one an old
acquaintance (Cristina Tuquero) and the other he did not know at the time. The accused talked to Cristina who then
introduced him to Maria Eva. Cristina
was looking for one Wilfredo Bonifacio and the accused, who knew Bonifacio,
accompanied the two (2) to the house of Bonifacio, and then returned to his
favorite loitering place by the Sta. Lucia bridge. At 9:00 o’clock that evening, while the accused was at the
Trinidad Medical Clinic visiting his friend, Remigio Viray, a patient at the
clinic, Cristina and Maria Eva arrived at the Clinic. There, according to the accused, Cristina confided to the accused
that Maria Eva had a “crush” on him. At 9:30 in the evening, Cristina left the hospital but Maria Eva stayed
behind. There, the accused went on,
Maria Eva confessed to him that she loved him, and invited him to her birthday
party. Maria Eva also invited him to
take a walk at the plaza of Masantol and from there, they proceeded to the
Masantol Elementary School. They sat
for a while on the stairs of the school. Still according to the accused, Maria Eva flirted with him, took off his
clothes and started embracing him. When
the accused was sufficiently aroused, they entered one of the rooms of the
elementary school. She took off her
clothes and had sexual intercourse with him three (3) times before
midnight. The complainant asked the
accused whether they were going to get married and he gallantly answered
“Yes”. After midnight, they
proceeded to the Trinidad Medical Clinic where the accused and Maria Eva shared
a bed that night. At 6:00 o’clock next
morning, the accused and his friend Wilfredo Bonifacio departed for Manila and
left Maria Eva behind at the hospital.^[5]

In his Appellant’s Brief, the accused raised the follow­ing
assignment of errors:

“I

The lower court erred in overlooking certain facts of substance and
value that if considered would affect the result of the case, to wit:

1. The complainant had not lost conscious­ness
inside the barangay tanod headquarters at Sta. Lucia, Matua, Masantol,
Pampanga.

2. The complainant had sought the appellant at
the San Nicolas Medical Clinic in the plaza of Masantol, Pampanga at 9:00 p.m.
of March 16, 1984.

3. The complainant had cooperated in the sexual
acts.

4. After the sexual acts, the complainant and
the appellant returned to the San Nicolas Medical Clinic at midnight of March
16, 1984 and slept therein up to 6:00 a.m. of the following day.

5. The complainant did not suffer any physical
injury.

6. The complainant continued to attend her
classes regularly in the Pampanga Colleges until the close of the school year.

7. The complainant continued to celebrate her
birthday of March 18, 1984 despite her claim that she was raped in the night of
March 16, 1984.

8. The complainant failed to report to her parents
and grandmother the alleged rape from March 16 to March 25, 1984.

II.

The lower court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of
the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the complainant Maria Eva Sarah C. Suing in the amount of
P50,000.00.”^[6]

The nature of the crime of rape is such that most often only the
victim and the accused can testify as to what had really happened between
them. Thus it is, the Court has
frequently held that conviction for rape may ensue upon the sole basis of the
complainant’s testimony, provided such testimony is found to be positive and
credible.^[7]

In the instant case, the trial court found the testimony of Maria
Eva to be straightforward and convincing; at the same time, the Court found the
story presented by the accused to be unworthy of belief and indeed
“ridiculous” and “absurd”.

We have examined the record of this case carefully and we find no
basis for overturning the above assessment made by the trial court of the
relative credibility of the testimony given by Maria Eva and that of the
accused. Like the trial court, we find
it very difficult to believe that a 15-year
old high school student brought up in the middle class environment offered by
the towns of Masantol and Macabebe in Pampanga, would have sought out the
accused, a man eleven (11) years older than herself, whom she had met for the
first time a few hours ago and who was obviously a user and also apparently a
pusher of prohibited drugs, and in effect offered herself sexually to him.

The accused denied that he forced the complainant to smoke
marijuana and to drink whiskey and Hylorin cough syrup. To corroborate this denial, the defense
presented Agripino Bonifacio, uncle of the accused, who testified that he was
at the Barangay Tanod Headquarters on the evening of 16 March 1984, and that
Headquarters had not been used by the accused and his companions for a drinking
spree that evening. He further stated
that Maria Eva did not lose consciousness at the Barangay Headquarters that
evening. These simple denials, however,
could not overcome the positive testimony of both Maria Eva and Cristina
Tuquero to the contrary. The trial
court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of all the three (3)
witnesses, found the testimony of Agripino Bonifacio not worthy of belief.^[8]

The defense also presented Eugenio Viray, who testified that
complainant Maria Eva returned together with the accused to the Trinidad
Medical Clinic around 12:00 midnight on 16 March 1984 and spent the rest of the
night there. Unfortunately for the
accused, the testimony of Eugenio Viray and that of the accused himself,
differed in pertinent detail. More
importantly, the story of the accused that he and Maria Eva returned to the
clinic around midnight and spent the rest of the night there, was seriously
weakened, if not totally demolished, by the testimony of one of the accused own
witnesses, Dr. Trinidad, owner or one of the owners of the Trinidad Medical
Clinic (also known as the San Nicolas Medical Clinic). The trial court said:

“Moreover, the accused claimed that from the Masantol
Elementary School, he and the complainant returned to the Trinidad Medical
Clinic where they slept in the room of Remigio Viray on the same bed after
midnight until 6:00 o’clock in the morning of March 17, 1984. However, his witness, Eugenio Viray,
testified before the Court on August 17, 1984 that he and the accused slept on
the same bed, whereas complainant slept on another bed. Both testimonies were, however, contradicted
by Dr. Trinidad who declared that there are only two rooms in their medical
clinic with four beds to accommodate for each room; that at the time the
room occupied by Remigio Virgay was full which means that all beds were
occupied by patients; that after 10:00 o’clock in the evening they never allow
visitors in their clinic. This
testimony of Dr. Trinidad completely destroyed the claim by the accused that he
and the complainant slept in the Trinidad
Medical Clinic after midnight until 6:00 o’clock in the morning on March 17,
1984.”^[9] (Underscoring supplied)

The accused did not deny that he had copulated with the
complainant Maria Eva. Indeed, he
claimed that he did so three (3) times that evening and that Maria Eva must
have enjoyed the sexual intercourse considering that their first embrace lasted
for fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes. We note that since Maria Eva testified that when she regained
consciousness, she was raped once, the claim of the accused that he had
sexually embraced Maria Eva three (3) times, could only mean that the
first two (2) times were done while she was unconscious from the powerful
mixture of marijuana, strong whiskey and narcotic cough syrup. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman either “by using
force or intimidation” or by doing so “when the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious”. Thus, the accused, by his own testimony, committed both forms of
rape. The rule, according to People
v. Lintag,^[10]
is that “if the ability to resist is taken away by administering drugs,
even though the woman may be conscious, sexual intercourse with her is rape
(citation omitted). If the woman’s will
is affected by the anaesthetic so that the connection is without her consent,
though she may be more or less conscious, the act will be rape (citation
omitted).”^[11]

The accused also stressed the absence of physical injuries on the
body of complainant and argues that therefore complainant must be held to have
cooperated with him towards the consummation of the sexual acts. Accused, however, cannot take much comfort
from the absence of signs of physical injuries. Since the complainant had passed out, no struggle which could
have produced tale-tell bruises ensued. When she finally woke up, she was threatened with a knife before the
accused inflicted himself for the third and last time upon his victim. Considering the weakness brought about by
the marijuana, the whiskey and the cough syrup, Maria Eva could not have been
expected to put up much resistance. Moreover, there is the rule that force in the crime of rape need not be
irresistible force; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation
employed did actually bring about the consummation of the rape.^[12]

Maria Eva said that she had been “forced” by the
accused to smoke the marijuana stick and to drink of the whiskey and the cough
syrup, while the accused disclaimed having forced her to do so. Even assuming for purposes of argument
merely that the combined pressures exercised by the accused and Cristina
Tuquero upon Maria Eva to partake of the whiskey and the cough syrup and to
smoke the marijuana stick, did not produce the legal condition of duress which
nullified consent, the complainant cannot by that token alone be regarded as
having consented to and cooperated with the sexual violations imposed upon her
while she lay unconscious and after she had regained her senses.

The accused also stressed that certain acts of the complainant in
the days following the night of 16 March 1984, negate the charge of rape. The accused sought to make much of the fact
that Maria Eva continued to attend her school classes, that she did not cancel,
but instead proceeded with, the celebration of her birthday on 18 March 1984,
and that she had failed to report her ordeal to her parents for nine (9) days.

We do not believe that any of the above circumstances necessarily
run counter to the testimony of Maria Eva that she had been raped. Her failure to report immediately her having
been sexually violated is sufficiently explained by the fear engendered in her
by the threat against her life and that of her parents as well. Moreover, our jurispru­dence includes many
cases where delay in reporting the rape was explained by the tender age of the
victim and the intense shame felt by the victim over the outrage inflicted upon
her.^[13]
In People v. Alcantara,^[14] the Court said:

“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. (TSN, February 17, 1967, p. 25.)

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. (TSN, December 6, 1967,
p. 21.)”^[15]

In People v. Oydoc,^[16]
we find this reminder —

“One should not expect a fourteen-year old girl to act like an
adult or mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under such difficult
circumstances and who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard a
threat on her life and the members of her family and complain immediately that
she had been forcibly deflowered. It is
not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their
virtue because of the rapists’ threat on their lives, more so when the rapist
is the child’s own stepfather living with her.”^[17]

That Maria Eva continued to go to school and did not cancel her
birthday party, did not indicate that she had consented to and cooperated in
the acts of copulation that the accused had readily, even boastfully,
admitted. They only indicate her
efforts to keep her terrible experience to herself and the sense of having been
dishonored and violated which she must have felt deeply. We should perhaps add that two (2) days
after Maria Eva and her mother had reported the rape to the Masantol Municipal
Police, the father of the accused together with some friends of his went to the
house of Maria Eva’s parents “for the purpose [according to the testimony
of Mrs. Carmelita Suing, Maria Eva’s mother] of asking the hand of [Maria Eva]
for marriage to the accused as his son
had sexually abused [Maria Eva]”. Maria Eva’s mother testified that she did not accept the proposal for
marriage “because her daughter objected and the accused [was] a marijuana
pusher”.^[18]

We conclude that no reversible error on the part of the trial
court in convicting the accused has been shown. However, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages should be
reduced to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurispru­dence on the matter.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court dated 13
February 1985 is hereby AFFIRMED, except the award of moral damages which is
hereby reduced to P30,000.00. Costs
against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J. (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortez, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Records, p. 1.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 26.

^[3]
TSN, 13 June 1984, pp. 38-41.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 12.

^[5]
TSN, 20 July 1984, pp. 43-74.

^[6]
Brief of the Accused-Appellant, p. 1; Rollo, p. 49.

^[7]
People v. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 349 (1987).

^[8]
Decision, Regional Trial Court, Rollo, pp. 19-20.

^[9]
Rollo, p. 25.

^[10]
126 SCRA 511 (1983).

^[11]
126 SCRA at 516.

^[12]
People v. Mendoza, 163 SCRA 568 (1988).

^[13]
Rollo, p. 21.

^[14]
126 SCRA 425 (1983).

^[15]
126 SCRA at 437.

^[16]
125 SCRA 250 (1983).

^[17]
125 SCRA at 256.

^[18]
Decision, Regional Trial Court, Rollo, p. 15; TSN, 14 June 1984, pp. 112-113.