August 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 189300 : August 17, 2011]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS RODRIGO CORONADO, APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 189300 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus RODRIGO CORONADO, appellant.
On appeal is the September 8, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment[2] of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, of Dumaguete City, finding appellant guilty of three counts of rape of minor AAA[3], who was only fourteen (14) years old when the crimes were committed.
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts. AAA was the niece of appellant's wife, whose brother was AAA's father. Appellant employed AAA in his puto factory in Negros Occidental with a monthly salary of P500.00. On August 7, 1997, appellant brought AAA and her co-workers to Negros Oriental, and established a new puto factory inside a rented house. Appellant and his male-workers usually slept on the ground floor while AAA and another female worker occupied separate rooms in the second floor.
AAA recounted that the first rape happened on September 1, 1997, at around eleven o'clock in the evening. Appellant entered AAA's room and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the said date. AAA felt pain when appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, but she did not report the incident as appellant showed her his handgun after the rape and warned her not to tell her co-workers or else he would kill them all. Then, appellant raped AAA two more times, on September 2 and 3, 1997, each time successfully inserting his penis into her vagina. AAA only managed to report the rapes to her father on September 4, 1997, when appellant went to Bacolod City to buy some motorcycle gears. On September 8, 1997, AAA and her father went to the police and filed a criminal complaint against appellant.
In the face of prosecution's evidence, appellant raised the defense of denial and the affirmative defense that he and AAA have been lovers since the first week of May 1997. Appellant asserted that their relationship started when he taught AAA how to drive a motorcycle and, in the course thereof, he courted her. Thereafter, he and AAA agreed to transfer the puto factory to Negros Oriental for she was afraid that appellant's wife might discover their relationship. But appellant and AAA had a quarrel on September 1, 1997 when AAA left for Negros Occidental on August 29, 1997 without telling him. About that time, AAA had reconciled with her boyfriend. Appellant asserted that the reason AAA charged him with rape was because she was afraid that his wife would file an adultery case against them.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties in each case. He was ordered to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages in each case. On appeal, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction.
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court affirms the decision of the CA. We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed any error in law and in its findings of fact especially as to AAA's credibility. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Absent any showing in this case that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses, especially since this Court's own review of the records leads it to conclude that AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility.[4] The Court notes that other than his claim of denial, appellant failed to show how the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. On the contrary, the RTC found that AAA's testimony was straightforward, logical, and credible. Further, the defense of consensual sex must be established by strong evidence in order to be worthy of judicial acceptance. Appellant's "sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence � some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like.[5] Other than appellant's testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory. Notably, apart from appellant's allegation that he and AAA were sweethearts, no love letter, memento or picture was presented by him to prove that such romantic relationship existed. And as correctly observed by the CA, even supposing that the sweetheart theory is true, a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will for love is not a license for lust.[6]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The September 8, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00031 affirming appellant Rodrigo Coronado's conviction for three counts of rape is AFFIRMED.
Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-19. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Edgardo L. Delos Santos concurring[2] CA rollo, pp. 25-29. Penned by Judge Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
[3] The victim's real name is withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[4] See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
[5] People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 175836, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 465, 471.
[6] See People v. Pulanco, G.R. No. 141186, November 27, 2003, 416 SCRA 532, 537.
