PEOPLE v. DOMINGO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. SANDY DOMINGO y LABIS, accused-appellant. 

G.R. No. 225743

June 7, 2017

FACTS:

On 24 January 2004, at around 8:00 in the evening, AAA who is a saleslady in a public market in Cavite was waiting for her cousin to fetch her, when appellant, who worked in a fish stall, approached her. Appellant asked if he could accompany private complainant to her aunt's home, where she resided. Since AAA's cousin was not yet around, she agreed.

The two boarded a tricycle. As they were about to leave, appellant brought out a bladed weapon and poked it on AAA's right waist. Struck with fear, AAA was unable to ask for help. Thereafter, they alighted and walked toward a house. Appellant ordered AAA to enter another room. Once inside, appellant who was still holding the knife, undressed himself and forcibly undressed AAA until the latter was completely naked. Appellant raped AAA for four times. Thereafter, appellant dressed up and told AAA that he will let her go home if she will not tell anybody what happened. She went home and told her Aunt what happened. Thereafter, they went to the police station to report the incident.

Appellant on the other hand claimed that AAA was his girlfriend. On the evening of January 24, 2004, he and AAA eloped and spent the night at his brother-in-law’s house. They agreed that they will go to her Aunt's house and will proceed to Bicol. When they reached her aunt's house, a man came out and chased him with a bolo, which prompted him to run. At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he was at his sister's house when policemen arrived and informed him that there was a complaint filed against him.

The RTC rendered judgment finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the Court a Quo erred in finding the appellant guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD: 

No. The Court a Quo did not err in finding the appellant guilty of the crime charged. The trial court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, especially after the CA as the intermediate reviewing tribunals has affirmed the findings, unless there is a clear showing that the findings were reached arbitrarily. In this case, the appellant has not made such showing.

The non-presentation of the physician who had examined AAA did not affect in any significant manner the credibility of the victim's testimony. After all, the medical findings have never been considered indispensable in supporting convictions for rape. In contrast, the rape victim's testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of the successful prosecution of the culprit provided such testimony meets the test of credibility.

Anent the sweetheart defense of the appellant, such defense, being uncorroborated and self-serving, deserved scant consideration. Nonetheless, that the appellant and the victim had been sweethearts was no excuse in the eyes of the law for him to employ force and intimidation in gratifying his carnal desires.

Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained, the appellant should be convicted only of rape. His forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the rape considering that his real objective in abducting her was to commit the rape.

Wherefore, the SC affirm the decision of the CA with modification, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.