Case Digest (G.R. No. 144340-42)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rodelio Aquino y Roda, G.R. Nos. 144340-42, April 17, 2002, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam, considered an automatic review of the joint judgment of Branch 163, Regional Trial Court (Pasig City) dated July 13, 2000.The accused, Rodelio Aquino y Roda (appellant), was criminally charged in three separate Informations: Criminal Case No. 116859-H (rape under Art. 266-A, as amended by R.A. No. 8353) for alleged sexual intercourse with his 5‑year‑old niece Charlaine Bautista; Criminal Case No. 116860‑H (rape/sexual assault) against 4‑year‑old Charmela Bautista; and Criminal Case No. 116861 (acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336, as incorporated in R.A. No. 7610) against 6‑year‑old Charmaine Bautista. Appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges and was tried jointly.
At trial the prosecution presented testimony from the mother, Winnie Bautista, a household helper/friend Cherry Lauria, and the three children. Cherry learned from the children that appellant had molested them; Charlaine specifically recounted that appellant asked her to put baby oil on his penis, applied oil to her vagina, and then inserted his penis into her. The children had been threatened by appellant not to tell. The police referred the children for medico‑legal examination. Dr. Emmanuel Reyes (PNP Crime Laboratory) found a healing deep laceration at the 5 o’clock position on Charlaine’s hymen and congestion of the fourchettes on the other children, findings the physician testified were compatible with genital manipulation and recent loss of virginity.
Appellant testified to an alibi — that he worked at a dumpsite during the relevant daytime hours — and suggested the charges were fabricated because he refused to lend his sister P5,000. The trial court, credited the victims’ testimony and medical evidence, and on July 13, 2000 rendered a joint decision: convicting appellant of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 116859‑H and sentencing him to death; and convicting him of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Cases Nos. 116860‑H and 116861 and sentencing him to indeterminate terms of reclusion temporal. The trial court ordered indemnity of P50,000 in the rape case and imposed costs. Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the rape conviction was subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court.
Appellant assigned errors attacking credibility, alleging inconsistencies and coaching of Charlaine, and claiming the evidence did not establish penetration or rape. The People answered. On appeal the Supreme Court first addressed its jurisdic...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction, under Section 17(1) of R.A. No. 296 and Rule 122, Sec. 3 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to review the two convictions for acts of lasciviousness together with the rape conviction where the latter carried the death penalty?
- Did the trial court err in convicting appellant of rape given alleged inconsistencies in the child‑victim’s testimony and claims of coaching or retraction?
- Was the element of penetration and the qualifying circumstances (minority of the victim and relationship to offender) sufficiently proven to sustain a conviction of qualified rape and the imposition of the death penalty under Art. 266‑B(1) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659?
-
...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)