G.R. No. L-29144 October 30, 1970
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUSTAQUIO MODELO alias “TAKIO,” defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Eustaquio Modelo, the common-law husband of Josefa Malay, was charged with raping Tarcela Morados, Josefa’s 13-year-old daughter from a previous marriage, on April 10, 1967. They all lived together in Barrio San Fernando, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. Tarcela testified that at around 6:00 a.m. on that date, while she was alone in the kitchen, appellant held her by the shoulders. She shouted, but he forcibly laid her down, removed her panty, parted her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina despite her struggle. Afterward, he threatened to kill her if she told her mother. He raped her again that same afternoon. She also testified to a third rape in June 1967. Tarcela did not reveal the rapes until late July 1967 when her mother noticed her pregnancy. A medical examination confirmed a 5-6 months pregnancy and physical findings compatible with sexual intercourse. Appellant denied the charges, claiming Tarcela was working as a maid in another house during that period and that he was at a construction site from early morning until afternoon of April 10. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, indemnity, acknowledgment and support of the offspring, and costs.

ISSUE

1. Whether the presumption of innocence was overcome by the uncorroborated and allegedly self-contradictory testimony of the complaining witness.
2. Whether the complaining witness offered no resistance to the alleged intercourse.
3. Whether the trial court erred in ignoring the exculpatory evidence for the defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. The presumption of innocence was overcome. The alleged inconsistencies in Tarcela’s testimony were on mere details and did not materially impair her credibility. Her testimony was clear and positive regarding the rape. Corroboration is not indispensable in rape cases, as the crime is typically committed in secrecy. The motive of Tarcela’s mother, Josefa, to file the complaint was credible, as she depended on appellant for support and would not lightly accuse him. The defense’s claim that Tarcela was a maid elsewhere was rebutted by the testimony of the alleged employer, Maxima Marcillana, who denied it.
2. Resistance was offered. The testimony of Tarcela explicitly stated that she shouted and struggled during the assault. Her failure to reveal the crime immediately was justified by appellant’s death threats and her tender age.
3. The exculpatory evidence, specifically appellant’s alibi, was not convincing. The Court found it improbable that carpenters would start work as early as 6:00 a.m., as claimed by appellant, noting the usual starting hour is 8:00 a.m. This left sufficient time for him to commit the crime around 6:00 a.m. and still report to work. The trial judge’s findings, based on his direct observation of the witnesses’ credibility, were accorded respect. No reversible error was found in the appealed decision.