FACTS:

The complainant, Angelina M. Naallatan, filed a sworn complaint stating that she was raped by the accused, Joseph Rabanes. The incident allegedly occurred on September 15, 1989, around 11:00 o'clock in the morning, at sitio Cabiao, Barangay Luyong Bonbon, Municipality of OpoI, Province of Misamis Oriental. According to Angelina's account, she was on her way home from her brother-in-law's house when the accused approached her, slapped her, and threatened her with violence. The accused then forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, warning her not to tell anyone or else he would kill her. After the accused left, Angelina went to her sister-in-law's house and reported the assault. Her sister-in-law brought her to the barangay kagawad and the police, and later Angelina identified the accused as the perpetrator. Angelina also underwent a physical examination and submitted an affidavit describing the incident. It was mentioned that the accused had previously been charged with raping two other women in the same area.

The pertinent facts of this case are as follows:

On September 15, 1989, Felicito Cabasan and Conrado Monson were walking home from the seashore when they saw a woman walking fast followed by a man from a distance of approximately 45 meters. They heard the woman cry for help but ignored it, thinking it was a quarrel between a husband and wife. Cabasan later identified the man as the accused, Joseph Rabanes. Along their pathway, they noticed a chicken tied and placed inside a plastic bag, which Monson told Cabasan to pick up. During cross-examination, Cabasan revealed that he saw the accused squeezing the neck of the woman but did not intervene due to fear. Cabasan knew that the accused had been charged with rape before and considered him a bad character.

Dr. Aziel Diel, Sr. Resident Physician at NMRTH, Department of Pathology, attended to the woman, Angelina Naallatan, on September 15, 1989, at 8:45 in the evening. Dr. Diel found that Angelina's hymen had old healed lacerations and concluded that it had been converted to caruncula myrtiformis. Angelina complained of being raped and was referred to the Department of Surgery for further examination. Dr. Mario Lao, Resident Physician at NMRTH, also attended to Angelina and noted abrasions on her neck and forearm.

The accused, Joseph Rabanes, testified that he had sexual intercourse with Angelina but claimed it was pursuant to an agreement between them for P100. He stated that on the morning of September 15, 1989, he went with his cousin to the barangay captain's house but, finding him absent, returned home. Feeling restless, he went back to the poblacion and had another bottle of beer. When his common-law wife, Alma Mahusay, passed by and refused his offer to accompany her, he followed her but she went home instead. Joseph Rabanes claimed he was not drunk at the time. Feeling lonely, he left their house and encountered a woman walking ahead. Thinking he knew her, he caught up with her and teased her. However, realizing she was not the person he thought she was, he let her go but she shouted and asked for help. He asked where she came from, and she explained that she came from her brother-in-law's house to get a chicken. The woman mentioned her problem was about her daughter's birthday. The accused offered her P100.00 if they would have sexual intercourse, to which she agreed. They went into the bushes and engaged in sexual activity.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the accused used force and intimidation on the person of the victim.

2. Whether the trial court erred in giving total credence to the testimony of the victim.

3. Whether the consideration of the accused's previous criminal case violated his rights.

4. Whether the state of intoxication of the accused should be considered as a mitigating circumstance in determining the imposable penalty.

5. Whether the absence of external signs or physical injuries negates the commission of the crime of rape.

6. Whether the testimony of the victim is sufficient to establish rape even without proof of injuries.

7. Whether the testimony of the victim is credible in establishing the commission of rape.

8. Whether the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and affidavit affect her credibility.

9. Whether the previous criminal charge for the same crime against the accused-appellant should be considered in the present case.

10. Whether intoxication should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

RULING:

1. The trial court found that the accused used force and violence in the commission of the offense, based on the injuries found on the victim and the torn clothing. The medical certificate showed injuries on the victim's neck and forearm, which were consistent with her testimony regarding the accused-appellant squeezing her neck and the grappling in the bushes. The lack of injuries on the victim's face does not negate her claim of being slapped, as explained by the doctor. Therefore, the finding of force and intimidation was affirmed.

2. The trial court properly gave total credence to the testimony of the victim, despite inconsistencies in some material matters. Inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily render the witness' testimony unreliable, as they may be due to human memory lapse or the nature of the traumatic event. The trial court found the victim's testimony to be detailed and consistent in relating the essential facts of the crime, and there was no reason to doubt her credibility.

3. The consideration of the accused's previous criminal case did not violate his rights. The accused objected to its consideration, arguing that he did not testify about it during his examination-in-chief. However, the trial court was allowed to consider the previous criminal case as evidence for the purpose of determining the moral character of the accused. This is in accordance with Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

4. The state of intoxication of the accused was not considered as a mitigating circumstance in determining the penalty. Even if the accused was intoxicated at the time of the crime, it does not excuse or mitigate his liability. Intoxication is not a defense to a crime, unless it is involuntary and gives rise to a state of insanity which renders the accused incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions.

5. The absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape.

6. Proof of injuries is not necessary to establish rape as it is not an essential element of the crime.

7. The credibility of the victim's testimony is determined by the trial court, as it had the opportunity to observe her deportment and manner of testifying. If the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted based on her testimony.

8. The inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and affidavit are more apparent than real and do not affect her credibility. Her failure to disclose certain details does not lessen her credibility but instead indicates her sincerity, candor, and lack of outside suggestion.

9. The previous criminal charge for the same crime against the accused-appellant should not be considered in the present case. The prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused at the outset of the trial. In the absence of conviction in the previous charge, the accused should be presumed innocent. However, the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt in the present case independently of the previous charge.

10. Intoxication should not be considered as a mitigating circumstance. For intoxication to be considered a mitigating circumstance, it should be of such a degree as to affect the accused's mental faculties. In this case, the accused admitted to drinking only three glasses of beer and stated that he was not drunk. Drinking three small glasses of beer was not sufficient to affect his mental faculties.

PRINCIPLES:

• The use of force and violence in the commission of rape can be proven by the physical injuries sustained by the victim and the state of her torn clothing.

• Inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not necessarily render her testimony unreliable, as they may be due to human memory lapse or the nature of the traumatic event.

• The court may consider a previous criminal case as evidence for determining the moral character of the accused.

• Intoxication is not a defense or mitigating circumstance for the commission of a crime, unless it gives rise to a state of insanity which renders the accused incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions.

• The absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape.

• Proof of injuries is not necessary to establish the crime of rape as it is not an essential element.

• The credibility of a victim's testimony is determined by the trial court, considering the opportunity to observe the witness's deportment and manner of testifying.

• Inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not necessarily affect credibility, especially if they can be reconciled or are more apparent than real.

• In criminal cases, the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused at the outset of the trial. If the accused attempts to prove his good moral character, the prosecution can introduce evidence of his bad moral character at the rebuttal stage.

• In the absence of conviction in a previous charge, the accused should be presumed innocent.

• To be considered a mitigating circumstance, intoxication should be of such a degree as to affect the accused's mental faculties. Drinking a small amount of alcohol that does not affect the accused's mental faculties is not sufficient to be considered as intoxication.