ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142564.November 27, 2001]

PEOPLE vs. NERIO

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 27 2001.

G.R. No. 142564(People of the Philippines vs. Hilgem Nerio y Giganto.)

This is a motion for reconsideration filed by accused-appellant Hilgem Nerio y Giganto of the decision, dated September 26, 2001, of this Court finding him guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay complainant, Vilma Concel, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and the costs.

Accused-appellant argues that the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of the respect due the complainant on account of her age cannot be appreciated in the absence of evidence proving the same.He questions why complainant was physically examined only on April 3, 1999 when the rape occurred on April 1, 1999 and insinuates that the lacerations in her right palm could have been self-inflicted just to show that she tried to wrest the knife from accused-appellant who used the same to threaten her.Accused-appellant also theorizes that he can only be held liable for attempted rape, citing the case of People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270 (2000), since no penile penetration and ejaculation occurred.Finally, he reiterates his defense that he and the complainant are sweethearts.

These arguments are the same ones raised by him in his appellant's brief.They were found by this Court to be without merit.Indeed, the rape of complainant, a 70-year old woman, is itself the ultimate proof of disrespect of the offended party on account of her rank, being a retired school teacher, and her age, being 70 years old, as shown by the records of this case.

The Campuhan case cited by accused-appellant does not apply in the present case as the prosecution sufficiently established the fact that complainant was raped by accused-appellant at knifepoint.The delay of two days in undergoing medical examination is not material.Complainant's testimony was corroborated by the medical report showing a tear at the hymenal region and the reddening of the vulva.The doctor testified that these could have been caused by the insertion of a blunt object, such as a penis, and that the lacerations on complainant's right hand could have been caused by a sharp instrument, like a knife.

Finally, accused-appellant's "sweetheart theory" is self-serving.He failed to present evidence of such relationship in the form of love letters, gifts, and the like, or any witness to attest to his alleged amorous affair with complainant (People vs. Dagpin, G.R. No. 136254, December 4, 2000).

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to DENY with FINALITY the motion for reconsideration of the accused-appellant, the basic issues raised therein having been duly considered and passed upon by the Court and no substantial arguments having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.Buena, J., abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE