Month: February 2022

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARTIN Y. SIMON

G.R. No. 93028: July 29 1994: 304 Phil. 725

Offense Involved: R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

FACTS: On October 22, 1988, Martin Simon was caught in flagrante delicto engaging in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The prosecution was able to prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that appellant, on October 22, 1988, did sell two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez.  There were 2 tea bags of marijuana that was sold and there were 2 other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Information was filed for the illegal sale of four tea bags of marijuana dried leaves. On December 1989, the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant for a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and to pay the costs. The four tea bags of marijuana dried leaves were likewise ordered confiscated in favor of the Government. Aggrieved, the appellant elevated this present case, arguing that

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting Martin Simon for selling for the 4 tea bags of marijuana instead of only 2?

HELD:

  1. Yes. The lower court erred in convicting Martin Simon for selling for the 4 tea bags of marijuana. The Court ruled that there were 2 tea bags of marijuana that was sold and there were 2 other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Thus, Simon should be charged of selling for the 2 tea bags of marijuana only. The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, the court have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correccional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now in effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, to determine the minimum, the court applied first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that “in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.”. Hence, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged the benefit of a minimum sentence within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision correccional which is the maximum range have fixed through the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. For, with fealty to the law, the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FELIPE MIRANDILLA JR.

G.R. No. 186417: July 27 2011: 670 Phil. 397

Offense Involved: Kidnapping and illegal detention with Rape

FACTS: On or on about midnight of December 2, 2000, AAA was dancing with her elder sister, BBB in the plaza. AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies in a nearby store. While making her way back through the crowd, a man grabbed her hand, his arm wrapped her shoulders, with a knife’s point thrust at her right side. Mirandilla held AAA in detention for thirty-nine (39) days in separate cells situated in the city. He carnally abused her while holding a gun and/or a knife for twenty-seven (27) times, employing force and intimidation. At least once, Mirandilla put his penis in AAA’s mouth against her will while employing intimidation, threats, and force. AAA was able to escape one afternoon. She was able to reach the house of one Evelyn Guevarra who brought her to the police station on January 11, 2001. Guevarra bathed AAA and the police gave AAA food. When the police presented to her pictures of suspected criminals, she recognized Mirandilla’s face. Mirandilla was charged before the RTC of Legazpi City with kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and rape through sexual assault. Mirandilla denied the charges against him. He insisted that he and AAA were live-in partners and that their sexual encounters were consensual. The RTC convicted him of the offenses charged. The CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling convicting Mirandilla. It found him guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of kidnapping as ruled by the RTC), four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault. Mirandilla appealed.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals properly convicted Mirandilla of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault?

HELD:

  1. No. The Court of Appeals did not properly convicted Mirandilla The proper offense is special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape. AAA was able to prove each element of rape committed under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, that (1) Mirandilla had carnal knowledge of her, (2) through force, threat, or intimidation. She was also able to prove each element of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) Mirandilla inserted his penis into her mouth, (2) through force, threat, or intimidation. Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal detention is provided for under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code which states that any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. However, no matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as RA 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. WILFREDO LAYUG, ET., AL

G.R. No. 223679: September 27,2017: 818 Phil. 1021

Offense Involved: Robbery with Homicide

FACTS:  On June 1, 2001 in Dinalupihan, Bataan, accused-appellants had a shabu session together with the witness, Analiza Paule wherein they planned a hold-up against the victim, Victorino Paule. After the shabu session, accused-appellants introduced Analiza Paule to Victorino Paule and they agreed that the former will bring her to Benzi Lodge to have sex with her for a fee. After this, the witness and the accused-appellants instructed a tricycle driver-witness to bring all of them in their hide-out. Upon reaching a dark place, one of the accused instructed the driver to stop and he asked the victim to alight from the tricycle. After taking a few steps, the accused-appellants mugged and stabbed the victim to death and took his wallet and jewelry. Analiza Paule and the tricycle driver were threatened not to tell anyone or they will also get killed. Three days after, Analiza Paule reported the incident to the police. The accused-appellants were charged in the RTC with Robbery with Homicide with aggravating circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and presented their defenses and alibis. The RTC ruled against the accused and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Aggrieved, the accused-appellants  elevated the case to the CA, to which the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not lower court erred in finding accused to be guilty of Robbery with Homicide?
  2. Whether or not lower court erred in finding that treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were present in the commission of robbery with homicide? No.

HELD:

  1. No. The lower court did not err in finding accused to be guilty of Robbery with Homicide. Accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime (Art. 294, par. 1) by virtue of the the accounts of the eyewitnesses, particularly Analiza Paule and the tricycle driver’s testimonies. This is because no evidence was adduced by the defense to refute it or to show why said witnesses would testify falsely against appellants.
  • No. The lower court did not err in finding that treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were present in the commission of robbery with homicide The following aggravating circumstances were present in the commission of the crime: (a) treachery; (b) evident premeditation;  and (c) abuse of superior strength. The RTC was correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Treachery was established through Analiza’s testimony that upon reaching the secluded place, Victorino was asked to alight from the tricycle and without any provocation on his part, was repeatedly stabbed and kicked by the accused-appellants. Here, Victorino was caught by surprise when he was immediately stabbed by Buan a few steps after they alighted from the tricycle. It shows that the victim was caught completely off-guard, which supports the existence of the first element of treachery, i.e., a sudden attack giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The second element is likewise present as the accused-appellants consciously and deliberately stabbed the victim as evidenced by the fact that all of them had knives in their possession when the stabbing incident happened.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CONRADO R. LAOG

G.R. No. 178321: October 05 2011: 674 Phil. 444

Offense Involved: Rape with Homicide

FACTS: At around 6 PM of June 6, 2000, AAA and Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal, were walking along the rice paddies on their way to apply for work at a canteen near the National Highway in Sampaloc, San Rafel, Bulacan. Suddenly, appellant, who was holding an ice pick and a lead pipee, waylaid them and forcibly brought them to a grassy area at the back of a concrete wall. Thereafter, appellant struck AAA in the head with the lead pipe causing her to feel dizzy and to fall down. When Jennifer saw this, she cried out for help but appellant also hit her on the head with the lead pipe, knocking her down. Appellant stabbed Jennifer several times with the ice pick and covered her body with thick grass. Appellant then turned to AAA wherein he hit her in the head and stabbed her on the face. While AAA was in such defenseless position, appellant raped her. Thereafter, accused covered her with grass. At that point, AAA passed out. After gaining consciousness, AAA asked for help from her uncle and she was brought to the hospital where she stayed for more than 3 weeks. Appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that he was at home cooking dinner around the time the crimes were committed. RTC found appellant guilty of the 2 crimes. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for the murder of Jennifer and Reclusion Perpetua for the rape he committed to AAA.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not lower court erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the death of Jennifer and for the Rape AAA?

HELD:

  1. Accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Rape with Homicide and Rape. The prosecution in this case was able to prove both the rape of AAA and the killing of Jennifer both perpetrated by appellant, he is liable for rape with homicide under 266-B. The facts established showed that the constitutive elements of rape with homicide were consummated. the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JUAN GONZALES ESCOTE, JR.

G.R. No. 140756: April 04 2003: 448 Phil. 749

Offense Involved: Robbery With Homicide

FACTS: On September 28, 1996 at past midnight, At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants, rubber shoes, hats and jackets. Another passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was his service gun. When the bus was travelling along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup.. Juan and Victor then accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had collected from the passengers. The felons then went to the place Manio, Jr. took the identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun and told him: “Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin and papatay sa iyo.” and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six entrance wounds. Victor and Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus. Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the bus. When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident to the police authorities. Barely a month thereafter, Juan was captured in a checkpoint. While Victor was captured by virtue of a warrant of arrest. Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan found Juan and Victor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not trial court erred in finding the accused-appelants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide?

HELD:

  1. No. The trial court did not err in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution was able to prove the existence of the following essential elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Juan and Victor conspired and confabulated together in robbing the passengers of the Five Star Bus of their money and valuables and Romulo of his collections of the fares of the passengers and in killing SPO1 Manio, Jr. with impunity on the occasion of the robbery. Hence, both Juan and Victor are guilty as principals by direct participation of the felony of robbery with homicide under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. YOLANDA P. SANTOS

G.R. No. 237982: October 14 2020

Offense Involved: Qualified Theft (Article 310, RPC)

FACTS: Yolanda P. Santos, accused-appellant, was the Officer In Charge (OlC)-Property Accountant of Dasman Realty for its Dasman Residences project. Prompted by a report alleging that accused-appellant failed to account for and remit various payments received by her from clients to Dasman Realty, the latter issued a Memorandum dated July 11, 2013 authorizing Bañares to conduct a recording and bookkeeping review of the sale transactions and payment receipts due to the corporation under the accountability of accused-appellant. Upon evaluation of the original receipts and acknowledgment receipts as well as records of transactions, Bañares discovered that within the period of August 2011 to July 2013, fourteen (14) receipts, the aggregate value of which amounted to PI,029,893.33 under the accountability of the accused-appellant were unremitted to Dasman Realty. On July 11, 2014, fourteen (14) Informations for qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC were filed against accused-appellant in RTC Pasay City. The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of qualified theft. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant appealed, but the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of qualified theft despite failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

HELD:

  1. No. The Court of Appeals did not err in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of qualified theft. The prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the elements of qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC. Accused-appellant, as part of her duty as OIC-Property Accountant of Dasman Realty, admitted that she received the payments from Dasman Realty’s clients for the period September 2011 to May 2013 in the total amount of P1,029,893.33, thus, she had actual possession of the monies, yet failed to remit the same to Dasman Realty. As an employee tasked to merely collect payments from Dasman Realty’s clients, she did not have a right over the thing as she was merely entrusted to collect the cash collections in behalf of Dasman Realty.

ARISTOTLE N. VALENZUELA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G. R. NO.  160188: June 21 2007: 552 Phil. 381

Offense Involved: Theft (Article 308,, RPC)

FACTS: On May 19, 1994, petitioner Aristotle Valenzuelaand Calderon were seen outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU),” moving a push cart with cases of detergent of Tide products. Petitioner was then seen unloading these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Valenzuelathen returned inside the supermarket, and went out with more cartons of Tide products which he again unloaded to the same area in the open parking space. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. After pleading not guilty on arraignment, at the trial, petitioner and Calderon both claimed having been innocent bystanders within the vicinity of the Super Sale Club on the afternoon of said date when they were haled by Lago and his fellow security guards after a commotion and brought to the Baler PNP Station. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft.  Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner Valenzuelaargued that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA, however, affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence, this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the conviction of appellant for Consummated Theft?

HELD: No. The CA did not err in sustaining the conviction of appellant for Consummated Theft. The crime is consummated. The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. There was no need of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property to constitute an unlawful taking. The court eneunciated that as long as the descriptive circumstances that qualify the taking are present, including animo lucrandi and apoderamiento, the completion of the operative act that is the taking of personal property of another establishes, at least, that the transgression went beyond the attempted stage. Insofar as we consider the present question, unlawful taking is most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. In conjunction, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all. With these considerations, the Court concluded that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSEPH ORILLA

G.R. Nos. 148939-40: February 13 2004

Offense Involved: Qualified Rape (Article 266-B, RPC)

FACTS: On September 12, 1996, around 3:00 o’clock in the morning, fifteen-year old Remilyn Orilla was sound asleep inside one of the rooms of their house located at Masidem, Bani, Pangasinan when she was suddenly awakened by a heavy weight pressing on her body and found appellant Joseph Orilla on top of her. Appellant continuously pinned down Remilyn Orilla’s body with his own. She struggled to free herself from appellant but her efforts proved futile. Appellant held both hands of Remilyn Orilla with one hand holding a knife with his other hand. He then forced Remilyn Orilla’s legs apart and inserted his penis into her vagina. With a knife pointed at her, Remilyn Orilla was powerless. Appellant warned her not to make a noise. Frightened, Remilyn Orilla just kept silent. Around 9:00 o’clock in the morning of that same day, Remilyn Orilla reported to her sister, Evelyn Catabay, what appellant did to her. Immediately, they went to report it to the authorities. For his defense, Joseph Orilla posited his alibi that he was in Sitio Olo, Barangay Masidem, Bani, Pangasinan when the incident took place. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City found appellant guilty of qualified rape. Aggrived, the appelant filed this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the trial court erred in holding appellant guilty of qualified rape despite the prosecution’s failure to include the age of the accused in the Amended Information?

HELD:

  1. Yes. The trial court erred in holding appellant guilty of qualified rape despite the prosecution’s failure to include the age of the accused.  The prosecution went through the trouble of amending the Information to allege that Remilyn is the “younger sister” of appellant to emphasize the qualified nature of the rape. However, the Amended Information did not allege Remilyn’s minor age. The prosecution’s failure to allege specifically Remilyn’s minor age prevents the transformation of the crime to its qualified form. Since the Amended Information failed to inform appellant that the prosecution was accusing him of qualified rape, the court can convict appellant only for simple rape and the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua and not death.

RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 165483: September 12 2006: 533 Phil. 169

Offense Involved: Homicide (Article 249, RPC)

FACTS: On January 16, 1998, brothers Servillano, Melton and Michael Ferrer were having their drinking spree at their house in Poblacion, Manaoag, Pangasinan but later decided to proceed to Tidbits Videoke Bar to continue their drinking spree and to sing. Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas arrived together with Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio Bautista. When Jaime Palaganas was singing, “My Way”, Melton sang along. But, Jaime resented this, approached the brother and said in Pangasinan dialect “As if you are tough guys. You are already insulting me in that way.”  Jaime struck Servillano’s head with the microphone and a fight ensued. Ferdinand sought help from Rujjeric Palaganas. They went to the bar and upon seeing the Ferrers instructed Rujjeric to shoot them. Rujjeric Palaganas shot Servillano, Melton and Michael with the use of unlicensed firearm. As a result, Melton was killed, Servillano was fatally wounded and Michael was shot in his right shoulder. The police came and took the Ferrer brothers to Manaoag Hospital and later to Villaflor Hospital in Dagupan. Informations were filed for homicide. frustrated homicide and COMELEC Resolution No. 2958 in relation to Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code. Uppon arraignment, Rujjeric and Ferdinand entered separate pleas of “Not Guilty”. The RTC found Rujjeric guilty of the crime of Homicide and 2 counts of Frustrated Homicide but acquitted of the charge of Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2958 in relation to Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code while Ferdinand was acquitted of all the charges against him. The case was appealed, but the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not Court of Appeals erred in not acquitting accused-appellant on the ground of lawful self- defense.
  2. Whether or not Court of Appeals erred in sustaining accused-appelant’s conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

HELD:

  1. No. Court of Appeals did not err in not acquitting accused-appellant on the ground of lawful self- defense. The elements and/or requisites in order that a plea of self-defense may be validly considered in absolving a person from criminal liability were not present in this case. It is clear that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers that justified the act of petitioner in shooting them. There were no actual or imminent danger to the lives of petitioner and Ferdinand when they proceeded and arrived at the videoke bar and saw thereat the Ferrer brothers. the petitioner’s act of shooting the Ferrer brothers was not a reasonable and necessary means of repelling the aggression allegedly initiated by the Ferrer brothers. As aptly stated by the trial court, petitioner’s gun was far deadlier compared to the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers.
  • No. Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining accused-appelant’s conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense. In the present case, there is no compelling reason to deviate from their findings. Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of lawful self-defense.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SALVADOR TULAGAN

G.R. No. 227363: March 12 2019

Offense Involved: Rape

FACTS: Sometime in September 2011, AAA, nine (9) years old was peeling corn with her cousin who lived adjacent to her grandmother’s house, Tulagan approached her, spread her legs, and inserted his finger into her private part. AAA, likewise, testified that at around 11:00 a.m. of October 8, 2011, while she was playing with her cousin in front of Tulagan’s house, he brought her to his house and told her to keep quiet. He told her to lie down on the floor, and removed her short pants and panties. He also undressed himself, kissed AAA’s cheeks, and inserted his penis into her vagina. For the defense, Tulagan claimed that the whole month of September 2011, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., he was gathering dried banana leaves to sell then take a rest after 1:00 p.m. at their terrace, while his mother cut the banana leaves he gathered at the back of their kitchen. He said that he never went to AAA’s house and that he had not seen AAA during the entire month of September 2011. Tulagan, likewise, claimed that before the alleged incidents occurred, his mother had a misunderstanding with AAA’s grandmother, who later on started spreading rumors that he raped her granddaughter. The Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) and penalized in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.  Upon appeal, the CA affirmed Tulagan’s conviction of sexual assault and statutory rape. Aggrieved, Tulagan filed this appeal.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the lower court erred in sustaining accused-appelant’s conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

HELD:

  1. No. The lower court erred in sustaining his conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Jurisprudence holds that a witness’ testimony containing inconsistencies or discrepancies does not, by such fact alone, diminish the credibility of such testimony. In fact, the variance in minor details has the net effect of bolstering instead of diminishing the witness’ credibility because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. The fact that some of the details testified to by AAA did not appear in her Sinumpaang Salaysay does not mean that the sexual assault did not happen. AAA was still able to narrate all the details of the sexual assault she suffered in Tulagan’s hands. AAA’s account of her ordeal being straightforward and candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, as well as her positive identification of Tulagan as the perpetrator of the crime, are, thus, sufficient to support a conviction of rape.