ChanRobles Virtual law Library




SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS





PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. NOS. 152624-25. February 5, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GUILLERMO ANDALES, Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

After a meticulous review of the records and a careful assessment of the arguments of the solicitor general and appellant in this case, the Court finds no reason to overturn the trial courts Decision, except its award for moral damages which is reduced to an amount consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

The Case

Guillermo Andales appeals the October 15, 2001 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City (Branch 128) in Criminal Case Nos. C-53686 and C-53687. The RTC convicted him of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count.

The decretal portion of the RTC Decision reads as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Rape and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua for each offense charged, to be served simultaneously with all accessory penalties attached thereto. He is also ordered to pay the victim Carla Espayos P50,000 representing indemnity and P75,000 as moral damages for each case, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The period of his preventive detention during trial shall be credited in his favor.

The City Jail Warden of Caloocan is hereby ordered to transfer the accused Guillermo Andales to the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, for the service of his sentence.2 ςrνll

Two (2) criminal Informations,3 which were similarly worded except for the date of the commission of the crime, charged appellant as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

That sometime during the month of December, 1997,4 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with one CARLA ESPAYOS Y BAUTISTA, a minor of 10 yrs. old, against the latters will and without her consent.5 ςrνll

Upon his arraignment on May 27, 1998, appellant pleaded6 not guilty to both charges after the Informations had been read and explained to him in a language that he fully understood.7 After trial on the merits, the RTC promulgated its assailed Decision. Counsel for appellant then filed his Notice of Appeal on October 26, 2001.8

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

In its Brief,9 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) narrates the factual antecedents of the case as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Around noontime after Christmas day of 1997, 11-year old Carla Espayos was in their house along 7th Avenue, Caloocan City with her two younger sisters who were then sleeping. Appellant, who was their neighbor, gained entry into Carlas house and went near Carla.

Appellant removed his pants and then undressed Carla. When Carla was completely naked, appellant laid on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and proceeded to have carnal knowledge with Carla. Appellant threatened Carla with death if she would tell anybody about what had happened. He put on his pants and immediately left.

Sometime in January of 1998, also at noontime, when Carlas younger sisters were asleep, appellant again entered Carlas house and repeated what he did to Carla on the day after Christmas day of 1997.

After she was raped the second time, Carla mustered enough courage to tell her elder sister, Mary Kris about the two (2) rape incidents when Mary Kris inquired what was bothering her. Mary Kris accompanied her sister to the Caloocan City Police station to report the rape incidents. The police thereafter arrested appellant on the strength of Carlas complaint.

Carla executed her affidavit before the police investigator. She then went to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) where she was examined by a Medico-Legal officer who issued a certificate dated March 25, 1998. Said affidavit and medical certificate became the bases for the present set of charges against appellant.10

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, appellant states his version of the facts thus:11 ςrνll

Witness Leopoldo Garino, a tricycle driver, claims to know the accused Guillermo Andales, also a tricycle driver at 7th Avenue, Caloocan City. He saw the accused in December 1997, in the morning during breakfast, at lunch and even during dinner at 6 oclock in the evening. In January 1998, he went to his usual route at 7th Avenue, Caloocan City, at 5:00 oclock in the morning, again he saw the accused during breakfast, lunch and at dinner at 7:00 oclock in the evening.

The next defense witness was Evelyn Belen, daughter of the accused who testified that she knows the complainant Carla because her father Cresencio Espayos is a kumpadre of her father. Their families were in good terms, until these cases were filed against her father. She said the charges against her father are not true. They charged her father of rape because he helped his kumpadre Cresencio Espayos, who was charged by his daughter Mary Kris, a sister of Carla, for child abuse. She suspected they charged her father because he refused to open a water line shared by their family and Filomena Bautista, their grandmother. She believes Filomena Bautista got mad at her father saying, Putang-ina mo, bakit mo pinakialaman ang tubig, sa ginawa mong iyan, maaari kitang ipakulong. She insisted her father did not rape Carla because he was busy earning a living as a tricycle driver at 7th Avenue, Caloocan City.

Matilde Espayos, a paternal grandmother of Carla, testified that, since the death of her daughter-in-law Raquel Espayos, the mother of Carla, she went to live with her son Cresencio and his children. When she lived with them, she did the laundry and took care of her grandchildren whenever Cresencio was out of the house. On December 25, 1997, she went to visit her other children, she brought Carla with her. She and Carla returned at around 11:30 in the morning. She saw Cresencio but did not see the accused. The following day, December 26, 1997, she stayed in the house doing laundry work from 10:00 in the morning up to 2:00 oclock in the afternoon. At the time, Carla was at the streets playing and even asked her to hang clothes. She and Carla took lunch together, while Cresencio went to his brother-in-law to drink alcohol alak. That same night, she asked Carla to cook food for their supper because she was already tired.After taking their supper, Carla went out to throw their garbage and she came back after an hour. In January 1998, while still staying with Cresencio and his family, Carla did not report any rape committed on her by the accused.She insists there is no truth to the alleged rape after Christmas day of December 1997 and January 1998. The truth she said is that Carla was prodded by Filomena Bautista, her balae, because she was angry with the accused. Her balae was mad at the accused because he caused the disconnection of their water supply. When Carla informed her they have no water, she instructed Carla to go to her Kuya Gil, the accused, to ask why. When Carla came back, she informed her the accused disconnected the water line because of this, her balae vowed to place the accused behind bars. When she learned that two (2) cases of rape were filed against the accused, she left the house of Cresencio.

Guillermo Andales denied the accusations of rape allegedly committed in December 1997 and January 1998, because on Christmas day, December 25, 1997, he operated his tricycle along 7th Avenue, Caloocan City for 24 hours returning home only on December 26, 1997. In January 1998, he could not have raped Carla because he again operated his tricycle the whole day. He said these cases were filed against him because he interfered with their water connection.She cursed him even vowing to put him in jail. Filomena Bautista hated him because he extended help to her son-in-law Cresencio Espayos who was charged by his own daughter Mary Kris for child abuse before Branch 130 of this Court. He added, if Carla was indeed raped, then Cresensio Espayos, her father, must be responsible because his other daughter Mary Kris have complained against him for child abuse.12

Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC was convinced that the two (2) counts of rape had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that appellant was guilty thereof. It gave full faith and credence to the testimony of the 11-year-old victim, Carla Espayos.

In convicting appellant, the court a quo described the testimony of the victim as credible and truthful.It said that even her testimony alone could be the basis of his conviction. Concomitantly, it rejected his defenses of alibi and denial. It applied the long-standing principle that, unless they are supported by clear and convincing evidence, alibi and denial are inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the victim.

Hence, this appeal.13

The Issues

In his appeal, appellant raises the following alleged errors of the trial court for our consideration:

I

The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

II

The trial court gravely erred in not taking into consideration the defense interposed by the accused-appellant.14 ςrνll

In sum, the issue is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the two (2) charges of rape.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is unmeritorious.

Sole Issue:

Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

In questioning the finding of guilt by the RTC, appellant assails the testimony of the victim and claims that it was delivered too perfectly. He raises the possibility that she might have been coached, as her testimony seemed to have been rehearsed and memorized.

To further cast doubts on the correctness of his conviction, appellant cites the testimony of the victims paternal grandmother that the rape charges were simply fabricated by Filomena Bautista, the victims maternal grandmother. According to him, Filomena had the motive to instigate her granddaughter to file rape charges against him.

Given those facts, appellant argues that the prosecution failed to discharge its duty of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He vigorously maintains that a conviction should be based on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution, and not on the weakness of that for the defense.

Testimony of the Child-Victim

As with other rape cases, we are bound by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility -- it is difficult to prove but even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;(2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; the prosecution cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.15 ςrνll

As a result of these guiding principles in a prosecution for rape, credibility becomes the single most important issue. [16 In the case before us, we are once again confronted with a situation in which a child of tender years accuses a good family friend of the brutish act of rape.

We meticulously went over the testimony of the child-victim and found that the trial court had not erred in believing her narration of the events of the rape. She testified in a positive, categorical and unequivocal manner as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Fiscal Lomadilla:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

QDo you know a person by the name of Guillermo Andales?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AYes, sir.

QIs he inside the courtroom now?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AYes, sir, that one.

Interpreter:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Witness pointing to a person in the name of Guillermo Andales.

Why do you know him?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AHe is our neighbor, sir.

QIn these 2 cases C-53686-87 you are charging this Andales as the one who raped you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AYes, sir.

QWhen did this happen?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ADecember after christmas 1997, sir.

QAnd when [did] the next rape [happen]?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AJanuary after New Year, sir.

QHow did this rape [happen]?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AHe inserted his penis to my vagina, sir.

QWhere did this happen?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AIn our house, sir.

QWhat time of the day?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ANoon time, sir.

QWas there anybody in the house with you during the first time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AMy younger sisters, sir.

QWhat [are] their age[s]?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A6 and 4 years, old, sir.

QWere they awake when the rape happened?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AThey were sleeping, sir.

QYou said he inserted his penis to your vagina.

AYes, sir, and he laid on top of m[e] sir.

QWhat was he wearing at that time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AHe was wearing pants, sir.

QHow did he insert his penis to your vagina?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AHe removed his pants, sir.

QHow about you what were you wearing at that time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ARed short and T Shirt, sir.

QSince you were wearing a short how did he insert his penis to your vagina?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AHe told me to remove my short, sir.

No, sir, he was the one who remove[d] my short.

QYou did not resist?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ANo, sir, because I was afraid he was threatening me that I should not tell anybody or he will kill me.

QWas that uttered by the accused before or after he inserted his penis?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AAfter he raped me, sir.

QWhat did you feel when he inserted his penis to your vagina?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AIt was very painful, sir.

QWhat part of your body suffered pain?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AMy vagina, sir.

QDid you suffer any bleeding?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AYes, sir.

QHow long did the accused [stay] on top of you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AFor a while, sir.

QAnd during that time did you feel anything coming out of him?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AYes, sir, sticky substance.

QAfter that what happened next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ANo more, sir.

QWhat did he do after the sticky substance came out from him?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ANo more, sir.

QWhat did you do next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AI [wore] my shorts, sir.

QWhat did he do after raping you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AHe put on his pants, sir.

QAfter he put on his pants what happened next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ANo more, he told me not to tell anybody or he will kill me.

QHow many times did he [rape] you [i]n December?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AOnce (1) only, sir.

Q[I]n January 1998, how did the rape [happen]?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AThe same, sir.

QWhat do you mean?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AThe same [as] what he did to me in December.

QWhat time did he rape you in January?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ANoontime, sir.

QWere you alone at that time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AYes, sir, my sisters were also in the house?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

QWere they awake?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AThey were sleeping, sir.

QWhere [were] your parents that time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AThey [were] working, sir.

QWhere is your father working?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AHe is a government employee, sir.

QHow about your mother?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AShe is already dead, sir.

QAre you the eldest?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ANo, sir.

QWhere is your elder sister?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AShe [was] not at home, sir.

QHow far is the house of the accused from your house?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AOpposite our house, sir.

QWhat was your age when he raped you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A10 years, old, sir.

QWhat is your birthdate?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

AApril 4, 1987, sir.17 ςrνll

Her story was replete with details that remained consistent throughout her testimony. Positively pointing to appellant as the author of the crimes committed against her, she undoubtedly sustained his complicity therein. The RTC gave an unqualified description of her testimony as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The Court has scrupulously examined the testimony of the complainant Carla Espayos; it is convinced that the same, even standing alone, passes the test of credibility and may be made the basis of conviction. She was candid and truthful in her narrations, and the Court could not detect any tinge of insincerity in her testimony. There is no doubt that she is telling the truth.18 ςrνll

There is no reason for us to doubt the assessment by the trial court of the testimony of the victim. In general, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are not disturbed by appellate courts and are treated with much weight and great respect, since it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of those on the stand and was then in a position to discern whether they were telling the truth.19 Needless to say, its evaluation of their testimony and credibility is binding upon appellate courts, in the absence of a clear showing that it reached such evaluation arbitrarily; or plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.20 ςrνll

It should be clear that testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence and not be so easily dismissed as mere fabrications.21 In this case, the victim vividly recalled details that a child could not have possibly concocted. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.22 ςrνll

We are convinced, as the RTC was, that the narration of the victim herein could have been made only by someone who had been subjected to rape. The revelation of a young girl that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial in which she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction.23 The present a ppellants characterization of the testimony of the victim as too perfectly delivered has no basis. This flimsy and unfounded argument will not diminish the weight of her testimony, which was used as ground for conviction.

When a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape has been inflicted on her; and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. [24 This basic rule, founded on reason and experience,25 becomes even more apparent when the victim is a minor.

No woman, especially one of tender age, will concoct a story of rape, bear embarrassment and stigma in allowingan examination of her private parts, and thereafter testify in open court on the painfully intimate details of her ravishment,unless she is motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.26 ςrνll

Declared the RTC:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The Court is inclined to lend credence to complainants version of what transpired, considering not only because of her relative age of vulnerability but also because of her willingness to lay bare what should have been shrouded in secrecy and to be exposed to the shame and embarrassment a court trial entails. [27 ςrνll

In the present case, the narration by the victim of her horrible ordeal evinced sincerity and truthfulness and showed the innocence and naivet of a child. Youth and immaturity could indeed be badges of truth. [28 This observation is a matter of judicial cognizance borne out by human nature and experience.29 There could not have been a more eloquenttestament to the truth than this public baring of unspoken grief. [30

Motive in Filing the Case

Further, we do not give much credence to the allegation that the accusation against appellant was impelled by ill motive on the part of the family of the victim, particularly her maternal grandmother, Filomena. This Court has repeatedly ruled that it is unlikely for a young girl like complainant -- or for her family -- to impute the crime of rape and face social humiliation, if not to vindicate her honor.31 ςrνll

Appellant argues that the dispute between him and Filomena involving their water connection does not erase the fact that she had ill feelings towards him. While he himself acknowledges that such a misunderstanding was a shallow reason for him to be charged with rape, he nonetheless argues that some people do not know how to handle negative issues.32 ςrνll

The RTC easily dismissed this argument in these words:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Additionally, the defense assails the credibility of Carla by pointing out that complainant and her maternal grandmother were impelled by ill-motive in filing this case allegedly arising from the accuseds refusal to open a water line shared by them. We are not persuaded. This motive is simply too frail to bear out resentment and ill will. Even when consumed with hatred and revenge, it would be inconceivable for a grandmother to expose her granddaughter of tender age to the humiliation and ordeal of a public trial unless the charge is true. It takes nothing less than psychological depravity for a grandmother to concoct a story too damaging to the welfare and well-being of her own granddaughter.

It is for this very same reason that the Court finds it strange that Matilde Espayos, Carlas paternal grandmother, testified for accused Guillermo Andales, when she should have been looking after the interest and well-being of her own granddaughter. We are completely astounded as to what could have impelled her to take the cudgels for the very person who defiled her own flesh and blood -- her granddaughter. x x x [T]he Court does not find this circumstance compelling enough to disturb its findings to give full weight and credence to Carlas testimony; neither is it of such magnitude as to create a doubt in the mind of the Court on the guilt of accused.Complainants unwavering sincerity and candor while testifying in court convinces us that she was impelled by none other than an honest desire to obtain justice for the dastardly act committed upon her person.

In the same manner, it would be unnatural for a ten (10) year old, innocent girl to concoct a story of rape, knowing the same would drag herself to a lifetime of shame, just because she was influenced by her grandmother who may be harboring ill-feeling against the accused x x x.33 (Italics supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

We are not convinced, as appellant would like us to believe, that the victim filed the Complaint simply at her grandmothers prodding. Instigation by grandparents to file rape charges is not an uncommon defense. But such alleged motives as family feuds, resentment or revenge have hardly swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimonies of complainants who remained steadfast throughout their direct and cross-examinations.34 ςrνll

We cannot believe that the grandparents herein would expose their granddaughter, a young and innocent girl, to the humiliation and stigma of a rape trial, just because -- in the words of appellant himself -- of the simple issue of water connection which is, indeed, a shallow reason. No grandparents would expose their own granddaughter to the shame and scandal of having undergone such a debasing defilement of her chastity if the charge filed was not true.35 ςrνll

Besides, the imputation of ill motive not only remains unsubstantiated; it is also incredible, contrary to reason, and too unnatural to merit faith and credit. The medical findings36 in this case also support the fact of carnal knowledge. These findings were amply discussed by the medical doctor37 who testified for the prosecution. She declared that all her findings were compatible with the fact of penetration and the claim that the penis of the accused was inserted.38

Denial and Alibi

Appellant then raises the defenses of denial and alibi. He asserts that he could not have raped the victim, as he was driving his tricycle on 7th Avenue, Caloocan City, for 24 hours on the dates in question.39 ςrνll

To be sure, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.40 For it to prosper, proof that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed is insufficient. He must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.41 In the case before us, appellant himself testified that he was at the very same area where the house of the victim was located. He never testified that it was physically impossible for him to beat the scene of the crime on the date and at the time she testified to. What is clear is that he was within the vicinity of the locus criminis.

Besides, appellant cannot be exculpated from criminal liability, even by the witness he had presented -- another tricycle driver who testified to having seen appellant driving the latters tricycle on the days on which the rapes had allegedly occurred. If, as appellant himself admitted, he had indeed been driving his tricycle on 7th Avenue, Caloocan City, for 24 hours on the days in question, he must have been out of the sight of the other tricycle drivers most of the time. It would have then been impossible for the witness to have seen appellant at all times. Thus, the formers testimony, instead of lending credence to the latters alibi, further weakens it. The RTC correctly held:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

x x x. He even offers the testimony [of] his witness Leopoldo Garino, a fellow tricycle driver, to collaborate his allegations. Unfortunately, however, no details were ever presented by the accused and his witness regarding the time when they were actually plying their tricycle to show that it would be impossible for the accused to be at the place and at the time of the alleged rape complained of.42 ςrνll

In the light of the positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, his denial and alibi cannot be sustained.43 ςrνll

Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

1.Force, threat or intimidation is used.

2.The woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious.

3.Fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority is committed.

4.The woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.44 ςrνll

Under the last circumstance, if the offended woman is not yet 12 years old, carnal knowledge with her, regardless of the presence or the absence of consent, constitutes statutory rape.45 As carnal knowledge of a ten-year-old minor who was threatened has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime of rape have been satisfied.

Her age, ten years, at the time of both incidents -- December 1997 and January 1998 -- was established by (1) her own testimony, as well as the testimonies of Mary Kris Espayos (her older sister) and Cresencio Espayos (her father); and (2) her Birth Certificate46 which, not having been objected to by the defense, was admitted in evidence.

Thus, appellants conviction for the two (2) counts of rape, with the penalty of reclusion perpetuafor each count, is affirmed. The P50,000 civil indemnity for each count is likewise affirmed.The award of moral damages should be reduced, however, to P50,000 for each count in accordance with current jurisprudence.47 Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.48 ςrνll

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED, with the modification that the moral damages awarded by the trial court are reduced to P50,000 for each count of rape. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Azcuna, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:


1 Rollo, pp. 20-28; records, pp. 186-194. Penned by Judge Silvestre H. Bello Jr.

2 Assailed Decision, pp. 8-9; rollo, pp. 27-28; records, pp. 193-194.

3 Both Informations were dated March 26, 1998.

4 In Criminal Case No. C-53686. In Criminal Case No. C-53687, the crime was alleged to have occurred sometime during the month of January, 1998.

5 Signed by 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor Rosa C. Reyes; rollo, pp. 5 & 6; records, pp. 1 & 5.

6 Assisted by his counsel, Atty. Alexander Yap.

7 See the RTCs Order dated May 27, 1998; records, p. 13.

8 Rollo, p. 29; records, p. 196.

9 Signed by Assistant Solicitors General Carlos Ortega and Magdangal M. de Leon and Solicitor Ronaldo B. Martin.

10 Appellees Brief, pp. 4-6; rollo, pp. 74-76. Citations omitted.

11 Appellants Brief was signed by Attys. Amelia C. Garchitorena, Teresita S. de Guzman and Melita E. Lauron of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO).

12 Appellants Brief, pp. 6-9; rollo, pp. 47-50. Citations omitted.

13 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 6, 2003, upon this Courts receipt of appellees Brief. Appellants Brief was filed with this Court on December 26, 2002. The filing of a reply brief was deemed waived, as none had been submitted within the reglementary period.

14 Appellants Brief, p. 1; rollo, p. 42. Original in upper case.

15 People v. Perez, 378 SCRA 476, March 6, 2002; People v. Platilla, 378 SCRA 464, March 6, 2002; People v. Pajarillo, 377 SCRA 477, February 20, 2002; People v. Somodio, 377 SCRA 129, February 15, 2002; People v. Caigat, 376 SCRA 387, February 6, 2002; People v. Ollamina, 376 SCRA 337, February 6, 2002; People v. Bautista, 376 SCRA 18, February 4, 2002; People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355, January 31, 2002.

16 People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162, May 9, 2002; People v. Dulay, 381 SCRA 346, April 18, 2002; People v. Portugal, 379 SCRA 212, March 12, 2002; People v. Manayan, 420 Phil. 357, October 25, 2001; People v. Palero, 357 SCRA 724, May 10, 2001.

17 TSN, September 3, 1998, pp. 1-3.

18 Assailed RTC Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 26; records, p. 192.

19 People v. Alilin, 379 SCRA 647, March 21, 2002; People v. Glabo, 371 SCRA 567, December 7, 2001; People v. Padilla, 368 SCRA 578, November 14, 2001; People v. Lacuesta, 365 SCRA 306, September 14, 2001; People v. Porras, 413 Phil. 563, July 17, 2001; People v. Ellado, 353 SCRA 643, March 5, 2001.

20 People v. Manggasin, 365 Phil. 683, April 21, 1999; People v. Mengote, 364 Phil. 874, March 25, 1999; People v. Raptus, 198 SCRA 425, June 19, 1991.

21 People v. De Guzman, 372 SCRA 95, December 11, 2001; People v. Dacara, 420 Phil. 333, October 25, 2001; People v. Galvez, 418 Phil. 159, September 24, 2001; People v. Puerta, 416 Phil. 177, August 27, 2001; People v. Tejada, 413 Phil. 211, July 10, 2001.

22 People v. Palaa, 379 SCRA 553, March 20, 2002; People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355, January 31, 2002; People v. Quezada, 375 SCRA 248, January 30, 2002; People v. Santos, 354 SCRA 708, March 20, 2001; People v. Marquez, 347 SCRA 510, December 8, 2000; People v. Garcia, 341 SCRA 502, September 29, 2000.

23 People v. Molas, 350 Phil. 333, March 2, 1998.

24 People v. Lachica, supra; People v. Ollamina, supra; People v. Callos, 373 SCRA 481, January 16, 2002; People v. Tadeo, 371 SCRA 303, December 3, 2001; People v. Galvez, supra.

25 People v. Santos, 420 Phil. 620, November 13, 2001; People v. Tao, 387 Phil. 465, May 5, 2000; People v. Cula, 385 Phil. 742, March 28, 2000.

26 People v. Quezada, supra; People v. Agravante, 338 SCRA 13, August 15, 2000; People v. Turco Jr., 337 SCRA 715, August 14, 2000; People v. Tipay, 385 Phil. 689, March 28, 2000; People v. Bacule, 323 SCRA 734, January 28, 2000; People v. Nuez, 369 Phil. 422, July 8, 1999; People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA 214, February 15, 2002; People v. De Guzman, supra; People v. Makilang, 420 Phil. 188, October 23, 2001; People v. Galvez, supra.

27 Assailed RTC Decision, p. 8; rollo, p. 27; records, p. 193.

28 People v. Amaquin, 377 SCRA 362, February 20, 2002; People v. Tagud Sr., 375 SCRA 291, January 30, 2002; People v. De Guzman, supra; People v. Galvez, supra; People v. Puerta, supra; People v. Amadore, 357 SCRA 316, April 20, 2001.

29 People v. Ramos, 357 Phil. 559, September 25, 1998; People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, February 23, 1996.

30 People v. Tumala Jr., 348 Phil. 469, January 20, 1998.

31 People v. Lachica, supra; People v. Quezada, supra; People v. Villadares, 354 SCRA 86, March 8, 2001.

32 Appellants Brief, p. 11; rollo, p. 52.

33 Assailed RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; rollo, pp. 26-27; records, pp. 192-193.

34 People v. Ardon, 354 SCRA 609, March 16, 2001.

35 Ibid.

36 Medical Certificate dated March 25, 1998; records, p. 110.

37 Dr. Mariella Sugue Castillo.

38 TSN, July 22, 1999, p. 17.

39 TSN, January 26, 2000, p. 5.

40 People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162, May 9, 2002; People v. Sansaet, 376 SCRA 426, February 6, 2002; People v. Cuenca, 375 SCRA 119, January 29, 2002.

41 People v. Cordero, 351 SCRA 383, February 7, 2001; People v. Rendaje, 344 SCRA 738, November 15, 2000; People v. Hofilea, 389 Phil. 553, June 22, 2000; People v. Legaspi, 387 Phil. 108, April 27, 2000; People v. Lustre, 386 Phil. 390, April 6, 2000; People v. Llanes, 381 Phil. 733, February 4, 2000; People v. Rendoque, 379 Phil. 671, January 20, 2000.

42 Assailed RTC Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 26; records, p. 192.

43 People v. Lenantud, 352 SCRA 549, February 22, 2001; People v. Balmoria, 351 Phil. 188, March 20, 1998; People v. Baydo, 273 SCRA 526, June 17, 1997; People v. Datun, 338 Phil. 884, May 7, 1997; People v. Apongan, 337 Phil. 393, April 4, 1997; People v. Caritativo, 326 Phil. 1, April 1, 1996.

44 Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.

45 People v. Pine, 346 SCRA 383, November 29, 2000.

46 Exhibit C; records, p. 111.

47 People v. Pagsanjan, GR No. 139694, December 27, 2002; People v. Lachica, supra.; People v. Ugang, 381 SCRA 775, May 7, 2002; People v. Bertulfo, 381 SCRA 762, May 7, 2002.

48 People v. Lachica, supra; People v. Hermanes, 379 SCRA 170, March 12, 2002; People v. Parcia, 374 SCRA 714, January 28, 2002; People v. De Guzman, supra; People v. Balas, 372 SCRA 80, December 11, 2001.



























chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com