G.R. No. L-38002. June 29, 1983.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO VEGA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution evidence established that in the early morning of May 13, 1967, complainant Amelia Lising, a nightclub hostess, was forcibly taken from a taxi by six men, including appellant Virgilio Vega. The men blocked her taxi, assaulted the driver, and dragged her into their car. She was taken to isolated locations in Parañaque where, despite her resistance, she was successively raped by several men, with Vega being the fourth. Afterward, she was threatened and released. She immediately reported the incident, and a medical examination confirmed signs of recent sexual intercourse and physical injuries. The taxi driver corroborated the abduction and provided the license plate of the assailants’ car.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Vega claimed he was with friends drinking, attending a wake, and later resting at Luneta during the time of the incident. He presented a policeman and his mother to support his presence elsewhere and to challenge Lising’s initial identification. However, the defense failed to present a key witness, Teody Gavieres, the alleged owner of the car Vega claimed to have used that night.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Virgilio Vega of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape based on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found no cogent reason to overturn the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessment. The Court emphasized that the complainant had no motive to fabricate a story that would subject her to public shame and a harrowing trial process; her actions were consistent with a natural instinct to seek justice. The defense’s claim that the rape was physically impossible was rejected, as the trial court meticulously explained the positioning based on the testimony: the victim was held down by accomplices outside the car doors while the assailant was inside.
Furthermore, the Court noted significant consistencies between Vega’s own testimony and the prosecution’s narrative: he admitted being with a group of six drunken men joyriding in a car during the exact timeframe of the crime. His failure to present the car owner, Teody Gavieres, as a witness raised suspicion, suggesting Gavieres’ fear of being identified. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary intoxication, which was not habitual, was properly appreciated. Consequently, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code was proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua.