G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONRADO MERCADO y LAMPANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on March 8, 1981, around 2 a.m., Carmelita Martinez, a 42-year-old spinster, boarded the tricycle of accused-appellant Conrado Mercado, a married man, after selling rice cakes. Instead of taking her home, Mercado drove to a ricefield. Over her protests, he dragged her to a threshing ground, pushed her down, and hit her thigh, causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself naked, with Mercado on top of her, and she felt blood oozing from her loins. After the act, Mercado took her home. Her mother testified to her disheveled state, and a medical examination that same morning revealed multiple abrasions, hematoma, and a vulvar contusion, with spermatozoa present in a vaginal smear.
The defense presented only the accused-appellant, who admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual. He testified that he and Carmelita had been secret sweethearts for three months and that the encounter in the ricefield was their fourth voluntary sexual liaison. He asserted she undressed willingly and denied inflicting any injuries, suggesting the abrasions were sustained during passionate love-making.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the sexual intercourse between Conrado Mercado and Carmelita Martinez on March 8, 1981, was consensual, as claimed by the defense, or constituted rape through force and intimidation, as prosecuted.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for rape. The Court found the complainant’s testimony, despite an inconsistency regarding bleeding from a purported hymenal laceration (as the medical exam showed no hymen), credible on the whole. The medical evidence of multiple fresh injuries—abrasions, hematoma, and a vulvar contusion—was deemed compelling and inconsistent with consensual activity. The Court rejected the defense’s romanticized explanation that the injuries resulted from passionate thrashing on rough terrain, noting that such external force indicated violence, not mutual passion. The Court reasoned that even assuming a prior romantic relationship, a man cannot demand sexual submission from a sweetheart and certainly cannot employ violence. The element of carnal knowledge through force was established by the victim’s testimony of resistance and the corroborative physical injuries. The accused-appellant’s admission of intercourse, coupled with the prosecution’s evidence of force, sufficed to sustain the conviction. The decision of the trial court sentencing Mercado to reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with an increase in moral damages.