G.R. No. L-29971 - Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves the People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee and Rafael Saylan (alias Pael) as accused-appellant.
The incident occurred on or about January 23, 1972, at Sitio Craser, Malinao, Gingoog City, Philippines.
The case stemmed from a sworn complaint by Eutropia Agno, a married school teacher, who alleged that the accused, with the use of a dagger, forcibly raped her.

On the afternoon of January 23, 1972, Eutropia Agno went to the public market in Gingoog City to purchase foodstuffs.
Subsequently, she proceeded to her mother’s store to fetch her five-year-old daughter, Nilsonita.
The group then boarded a passenger jeepney where among the passengers were the accused, a young pupil named Rudy Gonzales, and a couple unknown to Agno.
Due to vehicular limitations on the road, the jeepney could only travel as far as the Malinas citrus farm; thereafter, all passengers had to walk approximately three and a half kilometers to reach Barrio Malinao.

Upon reaching a junction, the group temporarily split; however, the accused joined Eutropia Agno’s group.
While walking side by side, the accused produced an eight-inch dagger, pointed it at Eutropia, and threatened her with death if she shouted.
The accused then physically overpowered Eutropia by placing his right arm around her neck and dragging her to a more isolated area near a creek adjacent to a coconut tree.
At this isolated spot, he ordered Eutropia to remove her undergarments under threat and forced her to lie down.
The accused proceeded to have sexual intercourse with Eutropia repeatedly:

First, he inserted his penis into her vagina while positioning himself on top of her.
He then ordered her to stand up and later to lie down, repeating the act, ultimately performing the act five times using varying positions.
One of these positions was described by the court as “the same position as dogs do,” an indication of ignominy and degradation.

During the ordeal, the accused ordered the children, Nilsonita (Eutropia’s daughter) and Rudy Gonzales (a grade I pupil), to remain behind and threatened to kill them if they followed.
After completing the acts, the accused, along with Eutropia and the children, returned to the location where the children had been left, eventually proceeding to the house of a friend (referred to as “Ben”) after Eutropia, feeling unwell, sought help.
Later, upon waking between 9:00 and 10:00 o’clock that evening, Eutropia’s husband learned of the incident when she informed him that she had been raped by the accused.

Medical evidence: A certificate by Dr. Ireneo O. Pascual documented physical findings including the presence of viscid whitish secretions in the vaginal fornix, though no spermatozoa were identified.
Witness testimony: Rudy Gonzales testified to witnessing parts of the incident, including observations of the accused’s forceful actions toward Eutropia.
The accused’s stance: Despite his admission of having sexual intercourse with Eutropia three times on the said evening, he maintained that the acts were consensual and denied any element of force or intimidation.
Aggravating circumstances cited: The complaint listed multiple aggravating factors such as abuse of superior strength, the occurrence at nighttime, the use of an uninhabited (despoblado) area, ignominy, and reiteration.
The trial court’s finding acknowledged the presence of some aggravating circumstances (like ignominy and use of force) but dismissed others (like nocturnity and superiority) based on the available evidence.

Whether the accused’s admission of having sexual intercourse three successive times could be interpreted as an act of mutual consent.
Whether the evidence reasonably supports the allegation that the intercourse was committed against the will of the complainant.

Whether aggravating circumstances—specifically abuse of superior strength, use of a dagger, the uninhabited place, ignominy in the method of the act, and reiteration—were present and sufficiently established.
The proper evaluation of evidence pertaining to the alleged mitigating circumstances such as the complainant’s marital status and the absence of pregnancy.

How the court should weigh the conflicting testimonies, particularly the credibility of the complainant versus the accused’s version of consent.
The extent to which circumstantial evidence and direct witness observations contribute to the determination of the accused’s intent and actions.