G.R. No. 29191 , August 14, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO FAUSTO, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: STREET, J.

FACTS

Fernando Fausto was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape against Silveria Somera. The prosecution’s narrative, as provided by Silveria, was that on August 2, 1927, Fausto forcibly took her to a *camarin* where he raped her and kept her against her will for about four days, then moved her to another house for three more days, during which he continued to have sexual intercourse with her. She claimed she escaped only when Fausto was away. Fausto admitted to taking Silveria and having sexual relations with her but asserted it was entirely consensual and that they had planned the elopement together. Key evidence for the defense included the fact that Silveria had a bundle of her clothes with her when she left, and the testimonies of witnesses who saw her appearing content and uncoerced during the period in question.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Fernando Fausto committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape, specifically, whether Silveria Somera was taken and had sexual intercourse against her will.

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of conviction and ACQUITTED Fernando Fausto. The Court found Silveria Somera’s testimony not credible and insufficient to establish the elements of forcible abduction and rape.

The Court’s decision was based on the following points:
1. Inherent Improbability and Lack of Credibility: The Court found several aspects of Silveria’s story unbelievable, such as her claim of having nothing to eat or drink for days without ill effects, and the improbability that she had no opportunity to escape during the extended period if she were truly detained against her will.
2. Evidence of Consent and Premeditation: The most significant fact undermining the prosecution’s case was that Silveria had a bundle of her clothes with her. The Court rejected her explanation that Fausto brought them, finding it far more logical that she brought them herself pursuant to a pre-arranged plan for elopement. This was corroborated by defense witnesses who saw her carrying the bundle and appearing content.
3. Motive to Fabricate: The Court noted that both Fausto and Silveria were married to other persons. If Silveria admitted consent, she would be liable for adultery and face social and familial repercussions. This supplied a powerful motive to falsely accuse Fausto and portray herself as an entirely unwilling victim.
4. Legal Consequences: Since the evidence established Silveria was a consenting party, the crime of forcible abduction under Article 445 of the Penal Code was not committed. Furthermore, as she was a married woman (not a virgin), the crime of abduction with consent under Article 446 could not apply.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the complainant should not be accepted with precipitate credulity, especially when it is uncorroborated and her sincerity is suspect. The prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.