G.R. No. L-1328, September 29, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. ANDRES SALVADOR, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On May 27, 1902, the complaining witness, Eulalia Medina, was washing clothes in the Rio Grande River when she saw the accused, Andres Salvador, and became frightened. She left the river and started for home but was met and pursued by Salvador on the bank. She threw her tub at him and ran, but fell face downward. Salvador seized her, placed himself on top of her, and prevented her from getting up. He held her with one arm and had a knife in the other. Eulalia cried for help, and her mother, Vicenta Salas, responded. When Vicenta attempted to separate Salvador from her daughter, he wounded her in the right hand with the knife. The arrival of the mother and an aunt prevented Salvador from accomplishing his purpose. He was subsequently arrested. The Court of First Instance of Pampanga convicted Salvador of attempted rape on April 21, 1903, sentencing him to eight months of prision correccional with accessories. He appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove an attempt or the intent to abuse her honor, and that the trial court erred in denying a continuance to procure witnesses.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit rape and is guilty of attempted rape.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a continuance to procure witnesses.

RULING:
1. Yes, the evidence is sufficient. The Supreme Court held that the acts of the defendantpursuing the victim, throwing himself upon her when she fell, holding her down with a knife, and his resistance and attack on the rescuing motherdemonstrated beyond reasonable doubt his intention to abuse the honor of Eulalia Medina. These acts constitute the offense of attempted rape as defined and punished under Article 438 in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Penal Code.
2. No, the trial court did not err. The defendant had previously been granted a suspension of the trial, which commenced on February 26, 1903, and was not completed until April 21, 1903. The defendant failed to show diligence in procuring the attendance of his witnesses, such as by requesting the issuance of compulsory process. Therefore, the denial of a further postponement was justified.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, with the modification that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of one-half of his preventive imprisonment under Article 93 of the Provisional Law for the application of the Penal Code. Costs of the appeal were adjudged against the defendant.