G.R. No. L-51777 March 25, 1988
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rodolfo Mustacisa y Bello, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on June 11, 1977, appellant Rodolfo Mustacisa visited the house of Patrolman Justo Mabulac in Manila. After drinking, he pretended to be drunk and was allowed to sleep in the kitchen. At around 1:00 a.m. on June 12, the 15-year-old housemaid and niece of Mrs. Mabulac, Rosy Lacaba, was sleeping in the sala. Appellant entered her mosquito net, poked a knife and fork at her neck, and threatened to kill her if she screamed. He forcibly removed her panty and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Not satisfied, he then pulled her to the kitchen and again had sexual intercourse with her, using the same knife to intimidate her. After the incident, Rosy reported the rape to another housemaid, Betty Limsey, who then woke Patrolman Mabulac. Initially, appellant denied the accusation but later admitted it to Mabulac, who then turned him over to the police. A medico-legal examination confirmed recent sexual intercourse, finding a fresh hymenal laceration. The appellant, in his defense, claimed he was too drunk to be aware of his actions and denied the rape.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the defense of intoxication and alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the victim’s testimony to be credible, straightforward, and consistent with the medical findings. The defense of intoxication was rejected. Voluntary intoxication is not an exempting circumstance unless it completely deprived the appellant of intelligence or intent. The evidence showed appellant’s deliberate actions—pretending drunkenness, using a weapon, making threats, and moving the victim to another location—which demonstrated a clear design and conscious effort to execute the crime, negating any claim of complete loss of reason. The Court also addressed the defense’s arguments about the victim’s failure to shout and the fact that others in the room did not wake up. The failure to scream was reasonably explained by the mortal threats made against her. The Court noted that the reactions of a young, frightened victim from the province under such traumatic circumstances are unpredictable, and her silence out of fear is understandable. The fact that the other occupants, including children, did not awaken does not discredit the testimony, as they could have been sound sleepers. The appellant’s extrajudicial confession, given after being informed of his rights, further corroborated his guilt. The trial court’s assessment of credibility was upheld. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the civil indemnity was increased to P20,000.00.