G.R. No. L-49778 January 27, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA Y APARICE alias ANDOT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Alejandro Bautista, a known fortune teller and faith healer, was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The complainant, Remedios Abalayan, a married woman, consulted him regarding her husband’s infidelity. Over three days, Bautista performed rituals, administered potions, and collected payment. On July 13, 1976, he isolated her in a remote cave under the pretense of a ceremony. There, after she rejected his suggestion of sexual intercourse, he gave her another potion. She soon felt dizzy, weak, and lost control over her person but remained conscious. In this state, she obeyed his order to remove her pants, and he had carnal knowledge of her.
The following day, Abalayan reported the incident. A medical specialist, Dr. Leonardo Bascara, testified that based on psychoanalysis and hypnosis sessions, she was under the influence of a psychedelic drug and hypnotic power, depriving her of will and reason. The defense highlighted a negative spermatozoa finding from an examination conducted about 36 hours post-incident and minor discrepancies between her affidavit and court testimony regarding how the potion was administered.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the appellant is guilty of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, where carnal knowledge occurs when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, despite the negative spermatozoa finding and alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s account.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the statutory definition of rape and the credibility of the victim’s testimony. Rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman under circumstances where she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. The Court found the complainant’s detailed testimony credible and consistent with the medical expert’s finding that she was in a state where her will was suspended due to the administered substance. The negative spermatozoa finding is not dispositive; medical authority indicates sperm may not survive beyond 24 hours, and the 36-hour interval, along with other factors like the appellant’s age, explains its absence. Minor discrepancies between a hastily given affidavit and court testimony, common due to the trauma of the event and the nature of affidavits, do not undermine her core account. The award of moral damages is justified for the mental anguish and injury to reputation inherent to such a crime. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is affirmed as proper for the offense.