GR L 13866; (December, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13866, December 20, 1918
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARTIN HUERTAS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
On the afternoon of August 13, 1916, Rustica Hernandez, a 17-year-old girl, was washing clothes alone on the bank of the Mahabangdahilic River in Lemery, Batangas. The defendant, Martin Huertas, approached her, declared his intent to satisfy his desires despite any resistance, and threatened her with a penknife when she tried to flee. He caught her, carried her to a secluded spot, pinned her down, and, despite her violent resistance and sobs, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. The act was witnessed by the victim’s grandmother, Ana Macatangay, who arrived upon hearing sobs and saw the defendant on top of her granddaughter. The defendant fled upon being discovered. The victim immediately reported the incident to the barrio lieutenant, and the following day she was medically examined. The physician found bruises on her lip and hand, a recently perforated hymen, and blood stains on her skirt, consistent with a violent struggle and recent defloration. The defendant claimed in his defense that he and the victim had been lovers for two years and that the sexual intercourse on that occasion was consensual.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Martin Huertas, is guilty of the crime of rape.
RULING:
Yes, the defendant is guilty of rape. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The testimony of the victim, corroborated by her grandmother’s eyewitness account, the medical findings, and the immediate report to authorities, established beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was accomplished through force and intimidation. The defendant’s claim of a consensual relationship was unsupported by evidence and was contradicted by the victim. The crime falls under Article 438 of the Penal Code. No mitigating or aggravating circumstances were present. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium degree was properly imposed. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed with the modification of sentencing the defendant to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.