G.R. Nos. L-44859-60 April 27, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABELARDO BALBUENA and JUANITO TORRES, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On August 28, 1975, complainant Elvira Polintan, a 20-year-old student, was at an apartment in Caloocan City talking with appellant Juanito Torres, a friend. They were joined by others, including appellant Abelardo Balbuena, and the group proceeded to drink gin in a former billiard hall on the ground floor of Balbuena’s apartment. After consuming about half a glass, Elvira felt dizzy and lay down on a bench to rest. According to her testimony, Balbuena then undressed her while Torres held her hands. Balbuena threatened her and her family with death if she did not yield. Despite her feeble struggles, Balbuena succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her on the billiard table. Immediately after, Torres took his turn while Balbuena held her hands and covered her mouth to prevent shouting. After the acts, Elvira managed to escape when the appellants were distracted. She reported the incident to her mother and authorities on October 20, 1975, or nearly two months later, explaining the delay was due to fear from the death threats.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants committed rape through force and intimidation, thereby overcoming their defenses of denial and alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the complainant’s testimony to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. The delay in reporting the crime was sufficiently justified by the appellants’ threats to kill her and her parents, which instilled a reasonable fear that overcame her resistance and initially prevented her from seeking immediate help. The medico-legal certificate, while noting no extragenital injuries, corroborated that she could have had sexual intercourse around the alleged date. The Court emphasized that the absence of physical injuries does not negate rape, as intimidation can substitute for physical force, rendering resistance futile. The defense of alibi was properly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, failing to prove it was physically impossible for the appellants to be at the crime scene. The simultaneous actions of the appellants—one holding the victim while the other assaulted her—established conspiracy, making each liable for the acts of the other. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count was upheld.