Facts:

This case involves the accused, Rudelino E. Lao, who was charged with two counts of rape by complainant Marina Olaquir in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The incidents were alleged to have occurred on March 7 and March 19, 1976, in barrio Sandayong Norte, Danao City, Philippines. On March 7, 1976, at approximately 4 PM, 15-year-old Olaquir was alone in her house with her 7-month-old sister. Lao, who was a married man and a cousin of the complainant, visited her house under the pretense of asking for a match. When Olaquir went to help him in the kitchen, Lao suddenly restrained her, gagged her with a piece of cloth, and threatened her with physical harm to prevent her from resisting. Despite her fears and the warning of further violence, Lao forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.

On March 19, 1976, during her mother’s birthday celebration, Lao again assaulted her. After being caught alone outside, he gagged her and threatened her before committing the same act of sexual i

...

Facts:

Overview of the Case

• The case involves two alleged incidents of rape committed by Rudelino E. Lao against Marina Olaquir, a 15‑year‑old complainant, in March 1976.
• The incidents occurred on separate dates (March 7 and March 19, 1976) and were consolidated for trial.
• The lower court convicted the accused for the March 7 incident with penalties including reclusion perpetua, indemnification of P5,000, and the declaration that he was the father of the complainant’s illegitimate child, while acquitting him for the March 19 incident.

Details of the First Alleged Rape (March 7, 1976)

• Setting and Timing
• The incident occurred around 4:00 p.m. at the complainant’s residence in barrio Sandayong Norte, Danao City, Philippines.
• At the time, the complainant was in the company of her 7-month‑old sister who was asleep.
• Sequence of Events
• Accused, a married man and cousin of the complainant, visited the house asking for a match.
• When the complainant went to find the match in the kitchen, the accused suddenly held her and gagged her with a piece of cloth.
• Upon her resistance, he struck her with a fistic blow on the arm and pushed her to the floor.
• The accused threatened further violence, warning her not to attempt to stand up or speak about the incident, even threatening to kill her if she disclosed the occurrence to his wife or her parents.

Details of the Second Alleged Rape (March 19, 1976)

• Setting and Timing
• The second incident occurred during a birthday celebration for the complainant’s mother, held in the family residence.
• The incident took place at approximately 8:00 p.m. as the complainant was on her way to check on her sleeping 7‑month‑old sister.
• Sequence of Events
• The accused abruptly appeared and gagged the complainant’s mouth.
• He employed threats of violence, indicating that he would inflict fistic blows if she did not comply with his demands.
• As a result of these threats and the forcible act, the accused succeeded in engaging in sexual intercourse with her.
• Post-incident, similar to the first occasion, he warned her against revealing the event to his wife or her family.

Circumstantial Evidence and Witness Testimonies

• Delay in Disclosure and Medical Evidence
• The complainant did not disclose the alleged rapes immediately; the revelation occurred only after she was found to be six months pregnant during an examination on July 29, 1976.
• This delay in reporting (about five months after the alleged events) raised questions regarding the veracity and reliability of her claims.
• Affidavit and Subsequent Testimony
• On August 14, 1976, the complainant executed an affidavit before the police, naming the accused as her assailant.
• The complainant’s mother testified about the relatively normal and familiar behavior between the accused and her daughter in the months following the alleged incidents.
• The Accused’s Letter
• A letter, written in the Visayan dialect and purportedly composed by Rudelino Lao, was submitted during trial.
• The letter expressed remorse and appealed for forgiveness, indicating family ties, poverty, and his duty toward his wife and children, thereby suggesting motives other than criminal intent.
• Birth and Medical Testimonies
• The complainant gave birth on October 19, 1976.
• Testimony from a witness, Elisa Lavador, and findings from Dr. Jose Cola indicated that the child born was full term, casting doubt on the timeline of conception related to the alleged dates of rape.

Trial Court’s Decision

• The lower court convicted the accused for the rape committed on March 7, 1976 (Case No. DC-0155) by imposing reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P5,000 in indemnification, and declaring him the father of the child.
• The accused was acquitted for the March 19, 1976 incident (Case No. DC-0156) on the basis that the evidence did not establish that the complainant’s submission was the result of force, considering the circumstances of the incident.

Issue:

• Whether the complainant’s testimony and conduct evidenced the manifest and tenacious resistance required to establish non-consent in a rape case.
• Whether the significant delay in reporting the alleged crimes—coupled with subsequent behavior and the lack of immediate protest—undermines the credibility of the complainant’s allegations.
• Whether the physical, medical, and circumstantial evidence, including the timeline of pregnancy and birth, support or contradict the prosecution’s version of events.
• Whether the existence and content of the accused’s letter of apology indicate a remorseful admission of guilt or suggest a consensual interaction based on familial relationships and other mitigating circumstances.
• Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused for the March 7 incident despite the evidentiary issues and in arriving at contradictory conclusions for the two alleged incidents.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)