G.R. No. L-44773. December 4, 1991.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALUSTIANO TISMO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Salustiano Tismo, was charged with rape allegedly committed on December 12, 1972, in Burauen, Leyte. The complainant, Lolita Avila, a teacher, testified that on said date, while waiting for a ride home at the house of the accused’s parents, the accused approached her, professed his love, and upon her rejection, forcibly dragged her, covered her mouth, and made sexual advances. She resisted by biting, squeezing, and struggling, which prevented the accused from removing her underwear and completing sexual intercourse. The defense presented a different version, claiming they were sweethearts and the incident was a lovers’ quarrel.
The procedural history is notable. After the filing of the complaint and the issuance of a warrant, the accused moved for bail. A hearing was conducted where both prosecution and defense presented evidence, mistakenly treating it as a trial on the merits before the accused was arraigned. Upon discovering this oversight, the trial court arraigned the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The parties agreed to re-present the previously adduced evidence, which the court admitted. The trial court subsequently convicted the accused of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused. The legal logic centers on the failure of the prosecution to prove all essential elements of rape, particularly the use of force or intimidation and the accomplishment of carnal knowledge. The Court meticulously analyzed the complainant’s testimony and found it insufficient to establish the requisite degree of force. Her account described resistance (biting, squeezing) that successfully frustrated the accused’s attempts to remove her underwear and achieve penetration. The Court held that for rape to be consummated, there must be proof of the entry of the male organ into the female organ, which was absent here. The acts described, while constituting lascivious conduct, did not amount to consummated rape.
Furthermore, the Court found the complainant’s behavior after the alleged incident inconsistent with that of a victim of a violent crime. She did not immediately report the incident to the authorities present that same evening and only filed a complaint after a significant delay, which cast doubt on her narrative. The defense of a romantic relationship, while not fully established, contributed to the reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the accusation must be supported by credible and convincing evidence that overcomes the presumption of innocence. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and the accused was ordered released unless lawfully held for another cause.