PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSELITO MERCADO Y DEL ROSARIO ALIAS “JOJO MERCADO”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision* dated June 13, 1985 of the Regional
Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 152, Pasig,
Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. 49976, finding accused Joselito
Mercado guilty of the crime of rape, and sentencing him to suffer a prison term
of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify
the offended party Marietta L. Pequit in the amounts
of P20,000.00 and P10,000.00 for moral and exemplary
damages respectively.^[1]

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

On March 11, 1982,
at about five o’clock in the afternoon,
complainant Marietta L. Pequit, 21 years old, left
Little Jewel’s School in San Isidro,
Taytay, Rizal where she
worked as an assistant to the school children. 
With her friend Susan, Marietta
walked towards Rizal Avenue
on her way home.  Upon reaching the
municipal hall of Taytay, the two parted and Marietta
continued on her way along Rizal
Avenue alone. 
A tricycle drew near.  On board
was the accused Joselito Mercado alias Jojo, a twenty-one-year old carpenter whom the complainant
had known two (2) weeks earlier.  He
asked her to wait for him.  Complainant
asked Joselito and the tricycle driver where they
were going, but receiving no reply, she went on her way.^[2]

When Marietta was in
front of Rommie’s Kindergarten, the tricycle bearing Joselito returned. 
It was already past six o’clock
in the evening.  Joselito
invited the complainant to ride with him and offered to bring her to the
cockpit where her boyfriend Al was waiting. 
Marietta refused but Joselito forced her to board the tricycle.  She did not make any outcry as there were no
people passing by.^[3]

The tricycle did not proceed to the cockpit but instead turned
towards Meralco
Village.  Sensing danger, Marietta
tried to free herself (“nagpupumiglas”) by trying to
jump out of the vehicle but her attempt was foiled by Joselito
who was seated at the exit side of the sidecar. 
She tried to scream but the accused covered her mouth with his hands.^[4]

The tricycle headed towards the grassy and unlighted portion of
the subdivision.  On the way, Marietta
heard Joselito and the driver conversing about “magtsutsupi” and when she asked what that was, she was told
that it meant “magdadamo”, or to smoke
marijuana.  Upon reaching the grassy
portion, they alighted near two big rocks. 
Joselito told the driver to move away and the
two were left alone.  Complainant pleaded
with Joselito to bring her home but he refused.  She thought of running away but it was
impossible.  The place was small and
completely enclosed by a wire fence and the only way out was blocked by the
tricycle.^[5]

When they were already alone in that grassy section of the
village, Joselito took out a marijuana stick and
puffed it, after, which he clasped Marietta
by the shoulders and embraced her.  She
pushed him away but the accused held her by the neck.  She pushed and boxed Joselito
while the latter kept hugging her and intermittently kissing her left and right
breasts.  Then he forced her to lie down
on the grass and placed himself oh top of her. 
He raised her skirt and removed her panties with his right hand while
his left hand held both her hands.  The
next thing Marietta knew was that Joselito was penetrating her vagina with his fingers.  Despite her struggles, the accused succeeded
in copulating with the complainant and she felt a hot substance being
discharged into her private organ.^[6]

After Joselito was through with the
offended party, he was followed by the tricycle driver and then by a “fat man”
and then it was Joselito’s turn again.^[7]
Sated, Joselito returned complainant’s panties and
step-in to her and then they all boarded the tricycle and headed towards the “labasan” of the subdivision.  When they reached the parking area for
tricycles at the “labasan”, Joselito
got out saying that he was going home to get some food.  But quick as a flash, he hailed a passing jeepney and left the complainant to fend fo herself.  Marietta
then walked home and immediately recounted her experience to her mother who
brought her right away to the municipal hall to report the outrage to the
police authorities.^[8]

On the following morning, March
12, 1982, at about ten o’clock,
Marietta was brought to Dr.
Gregorio C. Blanco of the PC crime laboratory for physical examination.  Dr. Blanco found live spermatozoa in the
vagina as well as abrasion of the posterior commissure
and vulvar mucosa as disclosed in his medico-legal
report.  He concluded that his findings
were compatible with recent sexual intercourse.^[9]

Later that day, Marietta
and her mother executed sworn affidavits at the Taytay
police station.  Of her alleged three
attackers, Marietta was only able
to identify Joselito Mercado who was placed under
arrest on March 12, 1982
and later released on bail.

On the strength of Marietta’s
complaint sworn before the municipal judge of Taytay,
Rizal, Joselito Mercado
alias “Jojo Mercado” with “John and Peter Doe” were
charged with rape through force or intimidation in an
information dated August 31,
1982 and filed with the Pasig
trial court.

The two other alleged rapists were subsequently identified as
Rodolfo Andres, Jr. and Romulo de Guzman and the
information was correspondingly amended. 
But despite the issuance of warrants for their capture, they were not
apprehended and the trial court ordered the case “archived” against the two
malefactors, the same to be automatically revived upon their arrest.^[10]

Upon arraignment, Joselito pleaded not
guilty and trial proceeded against him. 
On June 13, 1985,
the lower court rendered the judgment of conviction under review.

In this appeal, accused-appellant Joselito
assails his conviction and argues that the trial court erred in finding that
the offense of rape by force had been committed and in giving weight and
credence to the uncorroborated testimony of the offended party.^[11]

In his appellant’s brief, Joselito
contends that the nature and degree of violence employed on Marietta
were alleged only in general terms and would not suffice to sustain a
conviction for rape through force.  In
other words, from the victim’s narration of the events leading to the sexual
attack, there is no concrete evidence that Joselito
had actually used physical coercion to have sexual intercourse with the
offended party.

Whether or not the carnal knowledge of the victim was free and
voluntary as averred by the accused is largely a question of credibility.  On this point, we defer to the findings of
the lower court which is conceded to be in the best position to assess the
demeanor and deportment of the witnesses.^[12]
The court a quo observed that the complainant testified in a
straightforward manner.  Her answers were
logical and natural.  She testified that
she fought and boxed Joselito when the latter, high
on marijuana, embraced her and kissed her breasts.  She also stated that she pushed and resisted
him when he sexually assaulted her, first with his fingers and then, with his
private organ.

Marietta’s
credibility is in no way impaired by the absence of external physical injuries
or “chikanini” on her body in the aftermath of
rape.  The force employed in rape need
not be so great or of such a character that it could not be repelled.  It is only necessary that the force used by
the accused be sufficient to consummate his purpose.^[13]

If there was no actual physical force exerted on Marietta,
there was certainly intimidation.  She
was brought to a secluded portion of the subdivision.  There were no lamp posts to illuminate the
place.  To escape was futile because her
way was blocked.  The remoteness of the place,
the constant threats of bodily injury, the futility of escape, and the hands of
the accused covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting — all these
created an atmosphere of dread.  It could
be said that the offended party yielded because apprehension and sheer raw fear
that she would be seriously harmed or even killed if she resisted.

In a further effort to discredit Marietta’s
testimony and in the process exculpate himself, Joselito called attention to the fact that, contrary to her
claim, Marietta was no longer a
virgin at the time she was allegedly raped. 
While this physical condition was supported by medical findings, it has
no bearing on the case, except perhaps to show a minor lapse in complainant’s
testimony.  Keeping in mind the high
premium that the Filipino males place on a woman’s virginity, the Court can readily
understand the victim’s reluctance to admit that she has had sex even before
marriage.  At any rate, we have also held
that unchastity is not a defense in the crime of
rape.^[14]
Moreover, if the rape charge was unfounded and a mere fabrication as
conjectured by the defense, Joselito did not adduce
evidence to at Ieast show that the complainant had a
sinister motive in filing the case against him. 
On the contrary, the victim’s behavior after her harrowing experience
belied the claim that everything was just a sham.  She promptly reported the crime to the
authorities and submitted herself to a medical examination, all within a span
of twenty-four (24) hours her traumatic experience.  And as oft-stated in an endless number of
cases, no woman in her right mind would subject herself to the shame and
humiliation of a public trial for rape if she were not motivated by a sincere
desire to see that justice is done.^[15]

For his part, Joselito took flight,
only to be rearrested later in Barangay Matalatala, Mabitac, Laguna and turned over to the jurisdiction of the court on May 2, 1985.^[16]
In a good number of cases, flight of the accused was taken to signify a strong
sense of guilt and an awareness that he has no tenable
defense.^[17]

Finally, the defense claims that Joselito
was denied the opportunity to present his evidence because the case was
resolved mainly on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution.  This is untenable.  Every chance was given to the accused to
refute the charge against him but instead he chose to jump bail, leaving his
counsel with no other option but to manifest in open court that, in view of his
inability to present any evidence because of his client’s disappearance, he be
allowed to submit a memorandum in lieu of such evidence.^[18]
Be that as it may, with the presence of his counsel at every stage of the
proceedings and the actual cross-examination the prosecution witnesses, it
cannot be claimed that there was a miscarriage of justice through denial of due
process.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the guilt
of the accused-appellant Joselito Mercado for the
crime of rape through force or intimidation under Article 335(1) of the Revised
Penal Code has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Absent any modifying circumstances, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly
imposed.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.  Costs against the
accused-appellant.

So ordered.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

*
Penned by then Judge, now Court of Appeals Associate Justice, Josue N. Bellosillo.

^[1]
Original Records, p. 242.

^[2]
TSN, pp. 63-66, December 2, 1983.

^[3]
TSN, pp. 66 and 83, December 2, 1983.

^[4]
TSN, p. 5, December 2,
1983.

^[5]
TSN, pp. 9-10, 84, December 2, 1983.

^[6]
TSN, pp. 8, 10-15, December 2, 1983.

^[7]
TSN, p. 16, December 2, 1983.

^[8]
Original Records, pp. 6-7.

^[9]
TSN, pp. 6, 31-32, January 6, 1983;
Original Records, p. 12.

^[10] Original Records, pp. 159 and 222.

^[11] Rollo, p. 54.

^[12] People v. Taduyo, Nos. L-37928, September 29, 1987, 154 SCRA
349.

^[13] People vs. Villarosa, 4 Phil. 434;
People vs. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 76213, April 6, 1990; People vs. Abonada, G.R. No.
50041, January
27, 1989, 169 SCRA 530; People vs. Sarile, No. L- 37148,
June 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 593;
People vs. Momo, 56 Phil. 86.

^[14] People vs. Ramos, No. L-49218, August 27, 1987, 153 SCRA 276; People vs. Torre,
62 Phil. 942.

^[15] People vs. Abonada, supra.

^[16]
Original Records, p. 227.

^[17] People vs. Vengco, Nos. L-31657 and 32264, January 31, 1984, 127 SCRA
242; People vs. Millarpe, G.R. No. 69282, February 25, 1985, 134 SCRA 555; People vs. Pimentel, No. L-47915, January 7, 1987, 147 SCRA 25.

^[18]
Original Records, p. 212.