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 crime of forcible abduction with rape against Silveria Somera. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily based on Silveria’s testimony, alleged that on August 2, 1927, Fausto forcibly took her to a *camarin* and later to another house, detained her for several days, and repeatedly raped her. Fausto admitted to being with Silveria during that period but claimed the relationship was consensual, constituting an elopement. He pointed out that Silveria, a married woman, had brought a bundle of her clothes with her, suggesting premeditation and consent.

ISSUE

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

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of conviction and ACQUITTED Fernando Fausto.

The Court found Silveria Somera’s testimony inherently incredible and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key reasons for disbelieving her claim of non-consent include:
1. Presence of a Clothing Bundle: The fact that Silveria had a bundle of her clothes with her strongly indicated pre-arrangement and consent, contrary to her claim that Fausto brought them. The Court found it implausible that a rapist would provision himself with a change of clothes for his victim.
2. Opportunity to Escape: Silveria was detained for several days in locations where she had opportunities to escape or seek help if she truly desired, yet she did not.
3. Testimony of Defense Witnesses: Disinterested witnesses testified that Silveria appeared content and normal during the period in question, and was seen voluntarily with Fausto.
4. Motive to Fabricate: As both parties were married to others, Silveria had a strong motive to falsely accuse Fausto to avoid prosecution for adultery and social scorn.

The Court held that the evidence pointed to a consensual elopement. Since Silveria was a married woman and not a virgin, the act did not constitute forcible abduction under Article 445 of the Penal Code, nor could it be abduction with consent under Article 446. The testimony of the complainant in chastity crimes requires careful scrutiny and should not be accepted without corroboration when her sincerity is suspect. Consequently, Fausto’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.