GR 77228; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 77228 November 13, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMNINO G. GREFIEL, accused-appellant.
FACTS
In the early morning of September 19, 1982, accused-appellant Domnino G. Grefiel broke into the house of Marcela Torlao in Lawa-an, Eastern Samar. He identified himself as a “mayor ng sundalo,” threatened the family, and forcibly dragged Marcela from her home to a room in the Lawa-an Elementary School. There, he undressed her and, despite her pleas that she was four months pregnant, performed coitus and anal intercourse. He also attempted to force her to perform fellatio but fell asleep. Marcela escaped and reported the incident to Barangay Captain Pamfilo Inciso. At daybreak, authorities found the accused-appellant naked and asleep at the crime scene with a bolo beside him. Marcela was medically examined, and the findings indicated the presence of dead sperm and that her physical virginity was lost. She suffered a miscarriage barely a month later. The accused-appellant was charged with the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. At trial, he claimed that the sexual encounters were consensual and that the complaint was filed because Marcela’s husband discovered their affair. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and indemnity.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Marcela Torlao, to be credible and consistent, detailing the forcible abduction and the subsequent rape through force, violence, and intimidation. The medical findings, while not showing fresh trauma, corroborated sexual intercourse. The defense of consensual sexual relations was rejected as a “fantastic fallacy” unsupported by evidence. The complex crime of forcible abduction with rape was duly proven, as the abduction was a necessary means to commit the rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The indemnity was increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, and the accused-appellant was further ordered to pay P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.