People v. XXX
G.R. No. 229677
October 2, 2019
FACTS:
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.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC
HELD:
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.
