Case Digest (G.R. No. L-58847)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Bartolome Barranco, G.R. No. 58847, August 31, 1989, the Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged Bartolome Barranco (accused-appellant) with rape allegedly committed against Rosalia Barranco, a 19‑year‑old maiden, who was the eldest of seven children and lived in Madong, Janiuay, Iloilo. Bartolome was a married man with five children, a paternal second cousin of Rosalia’s father, and a nearby neighbor; Rosalia was a kumare of Bartolome’s wife. On February 10, 1980, while Rosalia was alone at home tending their pig, Bartolome allegedly entered her house, held a butcher’s knife to her throat, threatened to kill her if she resisted or cried out, stripped her and forced sexual intercourse after repeated attempts, keeping the knife pointed at her during the assault; he warned her not to tell anyone. On March 19, 1980, Bartolome again attempted to assault Rosalia; she struck him on the head with a piece of wood and he fled.
Rosalia later told her mother and, the following day, she and her mother reported the incidents to the police; she was referred to the NBI in Iloilo, where Dr. Ricardo H. Jaboneta examined her and found physical signs consistent with a first sexual experience and a positive pregnancy test. On April 16, 1980, a complaint for rape was filed in the municipal circuit court of Janiuay‑Badiangan, Iloilo; Bartolome was arrested, a preliminary investigation was conducted, and trial followed. On April 3, 1981 the trial court convicted Bartolome of rape by means of a deadly weapon and imposed life imprisonment and other penalties, ordered him to acknowledge the child born of the incident, and credited his preventive detention from July 3, 1980.
Bartolome appealed the conviction to the present forum (the Supreme Court First Division). He argued below that (1) Rosalia’s testimony should not be believed because there were no other witnesses and there were alleged inconsistencies in her statements; (2) he should not be convicted of rape; and (3) he could not be ordered to recognize the child as his because he was married. After reviewing the records and the NBI medical findings, the Supreme Cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the testimony of the offended party alone sufficient to support conviction for rape given alleged inconsistencies and lack of other witnesses?
- Did the evidence establish that Bartolome Barranco was guilty of rape by means of a deadly weapon?
- Was the trial court correct in ordering the accused to acknowledge the child al...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)