G.R. No. L-36638 June 28, 1974
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEXANDER SACABIN @ “ROMEO”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Alexander Sacabin, was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with damages. He appealed, contending that the sexual intercourse with the complainant, Erlinda Montibon, was consensual as they were sweethearts. The case presented a direct clash of testimonies. Erlinda, who was over 15 years old at the time and working as a helper, testified that on November 23, 1968, she was enticed by Teodelita Dagondon to go to the Laya Building under the pretext of buying her goods. There, the appellant was present. He wrestled with her, closed the doors and windows, and had forcible sexual intercourse with her twice despite her resistance, shouts for help, and expressions of pain. She stated the appellant promised to marry her during the act.
Sacabin presented a contrary version. He claimed he and Erlinda were sweethearts, that they ate together that evening, and that she voluntarily followed him to the Laya Building where they had consensual intercourse. He asserted she agreed to go with him to Cagayan. The trial presented a unique procedural circumstance: the prosecution witnesses testified before one judge, while the appellant presented his defense before another judge who ultimately rendered the decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the sexual intercourse between Alexander Sacabin and Erlinda Montibon was consensual, thereby negating the crime of rape, or forcible and against her will.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously reviewed the evidence, noting the peculiar situation where the deciding judge did not observe the prosecution witnesses. The Court found Erlinda’s testimony credible and consistent. Her detailed account of the forcible assault, including the wrestling, her shouts for help, the pain she endured, and the appellant’s promise to marry, convincingly established lack of consent. This narrative was strongly corroborated by physical evidence. Her torn dress and panty, which the appellant did not rebut, evidenced a struggle. The medico-legal certificate confirmed recent lacerations in her hymen, consistent with recent sexual intercourse and physical trauma.
The Court rejected the appellant’s sweetheart defense as unworthy of belief. Erlinda vehemently denied any romantic relationship. The Court reasoned that if they were truly sweethearts, it was highly improbable she would file a grave charge like rape. Furthermore, her conduct after the incident—immediately reporting the rape to her mistress upon her return and undergoing a medical examination—was consistent with that of an aggrieved victim. The physical evidence was deemed of the highest order, speaking more eloquently than witnesses. The confluence of Erlinda’s credible testimony, the corroborative physical evidence, and the implausibility of the appellant’s defense conclusively proved the commission of rape beyond reasonable doubt.