THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO TEODOSIO Y CARREON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The crime of rape is a heinous offense.  Its commission must be established by clear
and convincing evidence.  Invariably, the
prosecution must rely on the sole testimony of the offended party.  If her version proves to be weak if not
credible, then the conviction for the offense charged cannot follow.  This is the status of the instant case.

Fernando Teodosio y Carreon
was charged of the crime of rape in a sworn complaint that was filed by Elaine
R. Cesar in the Regional Trial Court (Special Criminal Court) in Manila
which reads as follows:

“The undersigned accuses FERNANDO TEODOSIO Y CARREON of the
crime of rape, committed as follows:

That on or about December 19, 1985, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, to
wit:  by then and there dragging the
undersigned, more than 12 years of age, inside the room at the Champion Lodge
Inn, located at Sta. Cruz, this City and thereafter, she was made to drink the softdrink which rendered her dizzy and unconscious, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge with the undersigned while she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, against her will.

Contrary to law.

(SGD.) ELAINE R.
CESAR

Complainant”^[1]

Upon arraignment the accused entered a plea of not guilty, after
which a trial on the merits was conducted. 
On May 17, 1988 a
decision was rendered by the trial court convicting the accused of the offense
charged as penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.  The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment
for a term of twenty (20) years, one (1) month and one (1) day of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the offended party Elaine
Cesar the sum of P15,000.00 as actual damages and
P50,000.00 as moral damages.

An appeal therefrom was interposed by
the accused to the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court committed the
following errors:

“I

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CRIME OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ART. 335 OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.

II

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN GIVING CREDIBILITY TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT AND HER OTHER
WITNESSES.”^[2]

Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, the Court of Appeals resolved to certify this case to this Court for
decision.  The resolution of the
appellate court is accompanied by a report recommending affirmance
of the appealed decision, and the imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

The findings of facts of the court a quo are as
follows:

“In the case at bar, it was established that at time of the
incident on December 19, 1985 the offended party, Elaine Cesar, was only 12
years and 6 months old and a mere 6th grader while the accused was already 20
years old and a 4th year college student; and that the accused is a sexually
hot individual as borne by the fact that he admittedly masturbates at least
once a week.  The offended party, Elaine
Cesar, testified in a simple, honest and straight-forward manner whereas the accused
testified in an evasive and sometimes incredible and inconsistent manner.  Elaine, at the time of the incident, being
only 12 years and 6 months old and a mere Grade 6 student, was quite gullible
and easily deceived by the accused.  This
Court also noted that the accused admitted, on cross-examination, that he and
Elaine agreed that they would stay in the Champion Lodging House for only ‘a
short time which would be for 3 to 4 hours’ only.

It also appeared from the testimony of the accused that they left
Lyceum at about 3:25 P.M. and then took the LRT at the Central Station and
alighted at the LRT Station at Doroteo Jose St., and
then they proceeded on foot to the Champion Lodging House which is located
along Rizal Avenue between Doroteo
Jose and Zurbaran Street, so that the accused and
Elaine must have arrived at the said motel between 4 to 5 P.M. on December 19,
1985.  The accused failed to explain why
they overstayed and left that motel only at about 7:30
A.M. on the following day, December
20, 1985.  The accused
claimed that when they first arrived at that motel in the afternoon of December 19, 1985, he phoned his
house and talked to her sister, Imelda, to tell his family that he would arrive
home late that day.  In order to satisfy
his lustful desires, the accused who is a sexually hot person, drugged the soft
drink or pineapple juice which Elaine later drank inside the room in that motel
so that she became dizzy and eventually lost consciousness.  Once Elaine was unconscious, the accused
raped her.  According to the accused,
they were very tired after walking so much on December 19, 1985 so that when
they arrived inside the room of the Champion Lodging House in the afternoon of
that day, the first thing they did was to order two glasses of pineapple juice
to quench their thirst.  And yet according
to the accused he alone drank the two glasses of pineapple juice while Elaine
did not, so that his testimony on that point is incredible, being against the
common experience of mankind.  They were
both tired and thirsty after having walked around so much and they both needed
a drink badly.

When she woke up at 5:00 A. M. on the following morning, December
20, 1985, Elaine found blood on her private part or vagina and she felt pain in
her body; when she asked the accused what happened, the accused lied by saying
that nothing happened.  On the following
day, December 21, 1985,
when Elaine told her mother what happened at the motel, her mother got angry
and lost no time in bringing her to the PC Crime Laboratory before 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon to have Elaine
physically examined by the expert Medico-Legal Examiner, Col./Dr.
Gregorio Blanco.  Dr. Blanco testified
positively that in the course of his physical examination of Elaine, he found
her hymen to have a fresh laceration at 5:00
o’clock and that said fresh laceration meant that there was a very
recent sexual intercourse, and he also concluded that the child, Elaine Cesar,
was therefore in a non-virgin state because of that fact.  Considering that the accused first met
Elaine, Cesar only on September 11, 1985, it is difficult to believe that the
said young girl, being only 12 years and 6 month old at that time, would have
consented to go with the accused to a motel on December 19, 1985 for the
purpose of submitting her virginity to him. 
The accused also admitted on cross-examination that while he and Elaine
were inside the room in that motel that he kissed and embraced Elaine and that
he asked Elaine to give her virginity to him “three times”.  The accused, being much older than Elaine,
took advantage of, deceived and abused the latter sexually by raping her when
she was unconscious on account of her having drunk the drugged soft drink or
pineapple juice.  The defense’s evidence,
more particularly the two pictures (Exh. 1 and 2) of
Elaine Cesar including the tenderly-worded handwritten dedication (Exh. 1-A) at the back of Exh. 1, did not disprove the fact that the accused raped the
child, Elaine Cesar, while she was unconscious inside the room of the Champion
Lodging House.

The straight-forward testimony of Elaine Cesar as well as the
testimony of the disinterested witness, Col/Dr. Blanco, that his physical
examination of Elaine Cesar on December 20, 1985 at the PC Crime Laboratory
revealed that her hymen had a fresh laceration at 5 o’clock and which indicated
recent sexual intercourse was not over-turned by the evidence of the defense.

In this connection, it has been held that absence of spermatozoa
does not disprove rape.  (People vs. Calainquim, 125 SCRA 655). 
If the ability to resist is taken away by administering drugs, even
though the woman may be conscious, sexual intercourse with her is rape (People
vs. Lintag, 126 SCRA 511).  In rape, there must be sexual
intercourse.  Penetration even partial, is necessary. 
The slightest penetration is enough. 
Proof of emission is not necessary. 
(People vs. Selfasion, et
al.  L-14732 Jan. 28, 1961). 
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art.
100 Revised Penal Code).”^[3]

Upon a careful review of the records of the case there is no question
that on that fateful day of December 19, 1985 Elaine and appellant were
together from 7:00 o’clock in the morning when they met in front of the Fargo
Department Store in Caloocan City when they attended
the Christmas party at the Manila Central University, where Elaine was
enrolled, up to 10:00 A.M..  Thereafter,
they proceeded to the Luneta where they took a
stroll.  Then they went to the Fiesta
Carnival at Cubao, Quezon City and they ate at a
nearby Mc Donald’s restaurant.  They
later proceeded to Lyceum where appellant took his examinations at about 2:30 P.M. 
Then he fetched Elaine at the canteen where she was waiting.  They rode the metropolitan light rail transit
at the Central Station up to Doroteo
Jose Street. 
Upon alighting therefrom, they walked to the
Champion Lodging House.  After drinking
two glasses of pineapple juice, they had sexual intercourse.  They stayed overnight in the said motel.

The focal question is whether the account of Elaine in that she
was only forced to go to the motel and that she was made to drink the soft
drink so that she lost consciousness is true and supported by the evidence.

Elaine admitted that she knew appellant some three months before
the alleged incident took place because they were neighbors, i.e.,
she resided with her grandmother in Caloocan City
during her school days.  Apparently, they
fell in love with each other for Elaine gave appellant her photograph marked
Exhibit 1 with her handwritten dedication.

“12-6-86

Love, may this picture serve as remembrance
for someone special.  This shows how much
I love you.  Take care, study hard, I
love you.  Please take care of this
picture.  I trust and love you.  Between us remember me always.  Love.

I love you

Elaine”^[4]

This picture was given by Elaine to appellant while they were
inside the Luneta Theater on December 16, 1985 and because of this memento,
he kissed her out of joy, according to appellant.  He said he courted Elaine for a few weeks and
she accepted his proposal by phone.  They
went out three times to see a movie, that is, in October, 1985, December 16, 1985 and December 18, 1985.  It was while at Luneta
Theater on December 18 that Elaine invited appellant to accompany her to her
class Christmas party.  Thus the
following day, appellant informed his mother of the invitation and she
permitted him and gave him P50.00 pocket money. 
From 7:00 A.M. of December 19, 1985 to the following
morning, they were together, going from one place to the other, until they
slept together in the lodging house. 
There was no force or compulsion involved.  It was a day of joy for the two young
lovers.  Appellant did not drug Elaine to
lay with her.  She was in love with him
and did not hesitate to surrender her virginity to her sweetheart upon a
promise of marriage.

The contradictions in the testimony of Elaine where she attempted
to prove that their coition was involuntary rather than fortify the case of the
prosecution, served to demolish the same.

Firstly, while Elaine claimed she was dragged to the hotel, her
medical examination did not reveal any contusions on her body showing use of
any force on her.  Indeed, if she was
under any compulsion, she could easily have escaped during the many hours they
were together going from one place to another, but she did not.  She was enjoying their tryst.

Secondly, if she was really drugged she should have been given at
least a blood and urine test to determine if there were any remaining chemicals
in her system.  This was not done.

Thirdly, after the incident, Elaine was composed and was not
disturbed at all.  She did not show any
sign of having had a traumatic experience. 
It was only when her mother scolded her that she contrived her story.

Fourthly, in one part of her Sagot
Salaysay submitted to the fiscal’s
office, she said she did not accept the invitation of appellant for them to go
to the Luneta.^[5]
In another part thereof, she said she accepted the same.^[6]
In court, she said she agreed to go to the Luneta^[7]
and thereafter she said she was forced.^[8]

She also stated in her Sagot Salaysay that she was only persuaded to give appellant
her photograph and appellant dictated what she wrote thereon.^[9]
In court she admitted she gave the photograph to appellant and that appellant
did not ask her to write the dedication thereon.^[10]

Verily, the foregoing circumstances effectively
disproves the theory of force and involuntariness in the sexual
interlude of the two.

What is obvious and clear is that these two young lovers, carried
by their mutual desire for each other, in a moment of recklessness, slept
together and thus consummated the fruition of their brief love affair.  Appellant cannot be held liable for rape as
there was none committed.  It was a
consensual affair.

Nevertheless, based on the evidence the crime committed by
appellant is simple seduction.  Article
338 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“ART. 338.  Simple
seduction. – The seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good
reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age, committed by means of
deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor.”

All the elements of the offense are present.

Frankly –

1.    Elaine was over 12 and under 18 years of
age.

2.    She is single and of good reputation.

3.    The offender had sexual intercourse with
her.

4.    It was committed by deceit.

Appellant said he planned to marry Elaine and for this reason he
successfully persuaded her to give up her virginity.  This is the deceit contemplated by law that
attended the commission of the offense.^[11]

Section 4, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal procedure
provides:

“Sec. 4. Judgment
in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is
variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that
proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included
in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted
of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or of the offense
charged included in that which is proved.”

Unfortunately, the essential ingredients of simple seduction are
not alleged nor necessarily included in the offense charged in the
information.  The only elements
of the offense alleged in the sworn complaint of the offended party is
that she is over 12 years of age when appellant had carnal knowledge of
her.  Thus, appellant cannot be convicted
even for simple seduction either.^[12]

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE and another judgment is hereby rendered ACQUITTING appellant of the
offense charged, with costs de oficio.  Let a copy of the decision be furnished the
Honorable Secretary of Justice for his appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Page 48, rollo.

^[2]
Page 10, appellant’s brief; page 46, Rollo.

^[3]
Pages 12 to 15, decision; page 48, rollo.

^[4] Exhibit 1-A.

^[5]
See paragraph 6 of Sagot Salaysay.

^[6] Ibid,
paragraph 8.

^[7] TSN, December 8, 1987, page 7.

^[8] Ibid,
page 8.

^[9] Paragraph 4, Sagot Salaysay.

^[10]
TSN, December 8, 1987,
pages 25, 28, and 29.

^[11] People vs. Iman, 62 Phil. 92
(1935); and U. S. vs. Sarmiento, 27 Phil. 121
(1914).

^[12] People vs. Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144 (1976) and People vs.
Quintal, 125 SCRA 734 (1983).