People v. XXX


People v. XXX

G.R. No. 229677

October 2, 2019


                On or about Oct. 2000 at around 9am in the City of Calapan, Philippines, the accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA against her will and without her consent, the damage and prejudice of the latter. The appellant offered her a room.  She felt him laying her down and removing her short pants and undergarments. Appellant then mounted her, held her body, thrust his penis into her vagina, and made pumpin motions. She tried to resist but every push and pull was painful.


                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC


                Yes. In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review. Rape is defined and penalized under Art. 266-A (1) of RPC. The Court finds that AAA’s testimony was with material inconsistencies and improbabilities. She testified she was locked inside the room although on cross, she backtracked and said the room was not locked. In fact, she admitted she could not even remember whether the door had lock at all. Granting the room was locked from the outside, she neither knocked nor shouted for help. Too, AAA confirmed that the windows in appellant’s room were open; thus, she could have easily asked for help from people outside. But she did not. More AAA did not testify that she was denied the capacity to move or even shout while she was left alone in appellant’s room. For sure, AAA had the opportunity to call for help and a chance to escape. But she did nothing. When AAA was allegedly rescued by her mother, she never disclosed to her about the supposed rape incipdents. It was so unnatural for a rape victim who claimed to have been detained overnight by her rapist not to have immediately if not spontaneously uttered a single word to her mother right after she got rescued.


No comments:

Post a Comment