G.R. No. L-32861. January 31, 1984.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO ERARDO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on January 6, 1970, in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, fourteen-year-old Emilia Erardo was raped by her own father, the appellant Francisco Erardo. Emilia testified that after returning from a dance and falling asleep in their home, she was awakened by someone who raised her skirt, removed her underwear, and threatened, “Huwag kang maingay kung gusto mong mabuhay.” Recognizing her father’s voice and out of fear, she did not resist or cry out. The following morning, her father threatened her not to report the incident. Emilia eventually left to live with her mother, Leonita Patricio, to whom she confided, leading to a police report and a medical examination. Dr. Honrado Lara’s medical certificate confirmed recent lacerations on her hymen and the presence of vaginal secretion, consistent with penetration.
The defense, presented through appellant’s common-law wife Gertrudes Portillo and appellant himself, denied the accusation. Portillo claimed she and Emilia slept in the same room that night and that nothing unusual occurred. Appellant alleged the case was a fabrication by his estranged wife, Leonita, motivated by anger after he refused to give her custody of Emilia. He also claimed his sworn statement admitting the act (Exhibit “D”) was extracted through police intimidation and that he signed it without reading.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the challenges to the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, the admissibility of the appellant’s extrajudicial confession, and the physical possibility of the crime’s commission.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s assessment of credibility. The Court found Emilia’s testimony straightforward, credible, and consistent with human experience. Her failure to shout or offer vigorous physical resistance was rationally explained by her fear and intimidation caused by her own father, the perpetrator, whose moral ascendancy and threat supplied the requisite force and intimidation for rape. The medical findings corroborated her claim of recent sexual intercourse.
The Court rejected the appellant’s defenses. His extrajudicial confession (Exhibit “D”) was deemed admissible and voluntary. Given before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, the constitutional rights to silence and counsel during investigation were not yet applicable. His claim of police maltreatment was unsupported by evidence, such as medical treatment or a complaint to nearby authorities. The presence of the common-law wife in the room did not negate the crime’s commission, as the intimidated victim made no outcry. Finally, the motive ascribed to Leonita Patricio was deemed illogical, as no mother would subject her daughter to the ordeal of a rape trial out of mere spite, especially when custody was already obtained. The indemnity was increased to P12,000.00.