G.R. No. 193914 - Seven Brothers Shipping Corp. vs. DMC-Construction Resources, Inc.

The case involves the People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee against Lucio Amiscua y Ojeda, defendant-appellant, charged with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2632 and 4111.
The offense occurred on the night of March 1, 1968, in the dwelling of Leonora Padero—a minor of 13 years—in Abuyog, Leyte, where the victim resided with her family.
The victims’ domicile specifics:

The Padero family had two houses in Abuyog, Leyte (one in Bo. Cadac-an, their usual abode, and another in Bo. Buenavista used during crop tending).
The incident took place at the Bo. Cadac-an residence while the parents were away attending to affairs at the Bo. Buenavista house.

At about midnight, the children were awakened by two distinct sources of light (a flash from a kerosene lamp and flashlights).
The two oldest children, Leonora and Norma, identified the intruders as Lucio Amiscua, a neighbor known for at least four years, and Demetrio Perez, residing in Bo. Buenavista.
The assailants executed the crime in a systematic manner:

Lucio Amiscua forcibly dragged Leonora to the adjoining sala.
Amiscua struck Leonora’s head, restrained her, and threatened her with a deadly bolo to ensure silence during the assault.
Despite her struggle, Amiscua succeeded in having carnal intercourse with her.
Subsequently, Demetrio Perez entered, also threatening the victim with his bolo, and committed a similar act even as Leonora resisted.

After the crimes, both perpetrators left the scene, and the following morning, the victim's siblings reported the incident to their parents who then informed the authorities.

Leonora was examined by the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Lorenzo S. Tiongson, who observed:

A slight swelling at the occipital area of her head.
Fresh vaginal lacerations at positions correlating with nonconsensual penetration.
The presence of motile and non-motile spermatozoa in the vaginal smear, suggesting recent sexual activity.

The medical certificate detailed the physical findings which strongly supported the prosecution’s narrative.

A formal complaint for rape was filed on March 7, 1968, by Leonora before the Municipal Judge of Abuyog.
A warrant for arrest was issued on March 8, 1968.
Despite several attempts by policeman Anastacio Laher, Lucio Amiscua evaded arrest by leaving his residence; he was eventually apprehended on May 1, 1969.
Demetrio Perez remained at large, despite being named in the initial complaint.
Post-arrest, Sgt. Leopoldo Cepeda, accompanied by other law enforcement officers, offered the Padero family P200.00 in an attempt to settle the case amicably—a proposition rejected by both Leonora and her father.

Defendant Amiscua’s defense asserted that he had a consensual, non-forcible relationship with Leonora, maintained over a two-month period prior to the incident.
He claimed that the relationship was known to both families, and that his leaving to work in Ormoc City was a matter of securing funds for marriage.
The defense, however, failed to produce corroborative evidence or witnesses to validate the alleged cohabitation and consanguinity, with testimonies largely relying on Amiscua’s word.
Contradicting this account, the testimony from the victim’s family and the evidence from the medical examination negated the possibility of a prior consensual relationship.

Whether the victims’ identification of defendant Amiscua, given that the identification occurred under the illumination of a kerosene lamp and flashlights, was sufficiently reliable.
The weight of the physical evidence (vaginal lacerations, presence of spermatozoa) in corroborating the victim’s account.

The defendant’s claim of a prior consensual relationship with Leonora and cohabitation, and whether such a claim diminishes the evidentiary weight of the rape charge.
The absence of any corollary evidence (medical or testimonial) to support an established, consensual relationship, particularly regarding healed injuries or community acknowledgment.

Whether the attempt by Amiscua’s emissaries (including Sgt. Cepeda) to settle for a monetary compromise constitutes an implied admission of guilt under Section 24 of Rule 130.
The legal implications of such an offer on the credibility of the defendant’s alibi.

Analysis of the aggravating factors such as the use of deadly weapons, nighttime operation, and abuse of superior strength during the commission of the crime.
Whether any mitigating circumstances exist to warrant a lesser penalty, particularly in relation to the charge under Article 335.