G.R. No. L-53470 June 26, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PONCIANO ROQUE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution evidence established that on October 13, 1976, twelve-year-old Ligaya Alvarez was washing clothes in a creek in Montalban, Rizal. The accused-appellant, Ponciano Roque, her neighbor, approached her. Upon her refusal to go with him, he forcibly dragged her to a grassy area, boxed her, rendered her unconscious, and had sexual intercourse with her. He threatened her not to report the incident. Ligaya disclosed the rape to her parents days later, leading to a medical examination which confirmed deep, healed lacerations on her hymen compatible with recent sexual trauma.
The defense presented a contradictory version, claiming that Ligaya and Roque had been consenting lovers for about six months prior to the incident, engaging in sexual intercourse around fifty times. Roque asserted that they had even undertaken a “pamanhikan” or marriage proposal to her father. The trial court rejected this defense as improbable, noting Roque’s existing marriage and the medical evidence indicating recent injury and resistance, not the condition expected from frequent prior consensual acts.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the defense of a consensual sexual relationship to be inherently unbelievable and contradicted by the physical evidence. The medical findings of recent, deep hymenal lacerations were incompatible with the claim of frequent intercourse over months and instead indicated a recent, forcible defloration. Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the twelve-year-old victim, who was subjected to rigorous cross-examination long after the traumatic event, were deemed natural given her age, immaturity, and educational level. They did not undermine her credible account of forcible assault.
However, the Court corrected the penalty imposed. The trial court erroneously sentenced Roque to an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The Court held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies only to divisible penalties and cannot include the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. For simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Thus, the penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua, and the award of indemnity was affirmed.