People v. Avelino
G.R. No. 231358
July 8, 2019
FACTS:
AAA and
her family had been renting a house from appellant's father since May 2006,
which house was adjacent to the house where appellant and his family were
staying. Sometime in May 2006, AAA was on the second floor of appellant's house
putting the latter's son to sleep. After appellant's son had already fallen
asleep, AAA decided to leave but she was prevented by appellant, who was armed
with a knife. Appellant threatened AAA that he would kill "all" of
them, presumably referring to AAA's family. AAA testified that while poking a
knife at her, appellant told her to lie down and thereafter undressed her. She
resisted but appellant went on undressing her, after which he removed his own
shorts and briefs. Appellant then went on top of AAA and inserted his penis
into her vagina. After the sexual intercourse, appellant told AAA, while poking
a knife at her, not to tell her parents about what had happened. AAA narrated
that it was only when she and her family had already transferred to another
house and when she became pregnant that her family learned about the rape
incident. Thereafter, AAA and her family reported the incident to the police,
which led to the filing of the complaint for rape against appellant.
On September 30, 2006, AAA had an
anogenital examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
Police Senior Inspector Edilberto S. Antonio (PSI Antonio), in his Medico-Legal
Report No. R06-1894,found clear evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma.
PSI Antonio likewise found that AAA's hymen had a shallow healed laceration.
During trial, PCI Baluyot testified on the findings of PSI Antonio, as the
latter was no longer connected with the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame. In
her testimony, PCI Baluyot categorically stated that the shallow healed
laceration in AAA's hymen, as indicated in Medico-Legal Report No. R06-1894,
could have been caused by a blunt penetrating trauma, such as an erect penis.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not appellant is guilty of rape.
HELD:
Yes.
AAA's testimony was credible. It is settled that the RTC's findings on the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled great weight and
respect and the same should not be overturned on appeal in the absence of any
clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied
some facts or circumstances which would have affected the case. Questions on
the credibility of witnesses are best addressed to the trial court due to its
unique position to observe the witnesses' deportment on the stand while
testifying. In this case, both the RTC and the CA held that AAA was credible
and her testimony categorically identified appellant as the person who, with
the use of a knife, intimidated her and raped her. The Court finds no reason to
doubt the findings of both the RTC and CA, especially since no evidence was
adduced showing that AAA had ill motive to falsely charge appellant with the
crime of rape.
Faced with such serious accusation,
appellant raised the defense of denial and argued that he did not commit the
same and that he did not know why he was being charged with rape in the first
place. His defense, however, is untenable. As held by the CA, denial cannot
prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the victim identifying
him as the perpetrator of the crime of rape. As against appellant's bare
denial, the Court upholds the CA's ruling that the positive and categorical
testimony of AAA identifying appellant as her rapist should prevail.
