People v. Bermas
G.R. No. 235947
June 19, 2019
FACTS:
The RTC
and CA convicted Francisco Bermas y Asis for the crime of Rape. On 10 January
2008, AAA told her mother that she was to attend a birthday party near their
house. AAA testified that as she was watching those having videoke, she was
told by accused Bermas to go to Barangay Captain CCC's house. Upon her arrival,
accused Bermas and one Garry Padilla were already at the house of the barangay
captain. While at the stairs of the said house, accused Bermas allegedly told
her "AAA, wag kang magsumbong marami aka ritong pera, sige na hubarin mo
na ang panty mo." Both men then removed private complainants' shorts and
underwear. Bermas showed her his penis, inserted it into her vagina and moved
in a pumping motion. After a while, Bermas removed his penis and a liquid
substance came out. Thereafter, Garry inserted his penis into her vagina.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not CA erred in convicting Bermas.
HELD:
In rape
cases, the prosecution has the burden to conclusively prove the two elements of
the crime: (1) that the offender had
carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or
intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. However, it is equally
true that in reviewing rape cases, the Court observes the following guiding
principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is
difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two
persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from
the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
As the
victim apparently "consented" to the act, the Court necessarily had
to determine whether this consent was vitiated, such that the act would amount
to Rape under Article 266-A(l)(b) for having carnal knowledge with a woman
"deprived of reason." However, as discussed, the prosecution failed
to establish her mental retardation beyond reasonable doubt. In sum, the second
element of the crime charged - that the victim be "deprived of
reason" -was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in consonance
with the constitutional right of presumption of innocence, the Court acquits
Bermas of the crime charged.
No comments:
Post a Comment