Case Digest (G.R. No. 169061)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Roque Abellano, G.R. No. 169061, June 08, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged Roque Abellano (accused-appellant) by Information dated March 4, 1999 with having raped his daughter, AAA, sometime in June 1997. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 6, in Criminal Case No. 8405 found Abellano guilty on April 23, 2001 and sentenced him to death and to pay civil indemnity; the RTC’s decision recited facts including AAA’s birthdate and that she was living with Abellano and two younger sisters after their mother’s death.
AAA testified that Abellano woke beside her one night in June 1997, undressed them both, lay on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain; she said the assaults continued repeatedly until about September 1998. AAA reported the incidents to an aunt; they then went to a barangay official and to the Manito Police Station. Medico-legal officer Dr. Lily Melrose Camara examined AAA and found a healed laceration at the 5:00 o’clock position and physical signs consistent with non-virginity; Dr. Camara acknowledged alternative explanations for some findings but testified they did not exclude rape.
Abellano denied the charge, claiming drunkenness and alleging the accusation was instigated by a relative with a custody motive; he initially was silent when asked about the charge and later said he could not remember because he was drunk. The trial court considered AAA’s testimony credible, convicted Abellano of qualified rape, and imposed death plus damages.
Pursuant to the Court’s transfer policy in People v. Mateo, the case was first placed on automatic review but was transferred to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00773 affirmed the RTC decision with modification of damages (June 10, 2005) and, under Section 13, Rule 124 of the Amended Rules to Govern Review of Death Penalty Cases, certified the entire record to the Supreme Court for further review. Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney’s Office filed supplement...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the evidence, including AAA’s testimony and the medico-legal findings, suffice to sustain Abellano’s conviction for qualified rape beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did any inconsistency concerning AAA’s exact age or the Information’s omission of a specific date vitiate the prosecution or the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship?
- Was the prosecution tainted by ill motive such that the conviction should be overturned?
- Could the death penalty be imposed despite subsequ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)