Case Digest (G.R. No. 122498)
Facts:
The case revolves around Elmedio Cajara, also known as Elming, who was accused of Qualified Rape against 16-year-old Marita Cajote. The incident took place on May 30, 1994, in Barangay Serum, Basey, Samar. Marita, a resident of Manila, arrived in Basey on May 18, 1994, and stayed with her elder sister, Marie. She was subsequently fetched by another sister, Merly Tagana (known as Meling), and Elmedio, who is Meling's common-law husband. Marita accompanied them to their house situated in Sitio Catuhaan, where she shared a room with Meling, Elmedio, and their two small children.
On the night of the incident, around 2:00 AM, Marita was awakened by Cajara, who was on top of her and holding a bolo. He threatened her into silence, then forcibly attempted to undress her. Despite her struggles and attempts to call for help, Meling did not intervene meaningfully but rather pretended to be asleep. Cajara proceeded to sexually assault Marita by inserting his fingers and later his penis
Case Digest (G.R. No. 122498)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The incident occurred on May 30, 1994, in Barangay Serum, Basey, Samar.
- Elmedio Cajara (also known as Elming) was charged with rape of 16-year-old Marita Cajote, a resident of Manila, who was visiting relatives in Basey.
- The accused is related by family ties: he is the brother-in-law of Marita’s older sister, and he is married (in common-law terms) to another of Marita’s sisters, Merly Tagana (alias Meling).
- Sequence of Events on May 30, 1994
- Prior to the incident, on May 18, 1994, Marita travelled to Basey, Samar, and stayed with her sister Marie, and subsequently with another sister, Lilia, as well as with Meling and Elming.
- Marita was residing in a single-room house shared by Meling, Elming, and their two small children; the house lacked partitions, making privacy impossible.
- On the evening of May 30, 1994, Marita slept at one end of the room, separated from Meling and Elming, who were at the opposite end.
- The Rape Incident
- At approximately 2:00 in the morning on May 31, 1994, Marita was awakened by the forceful presence of the accused who was already on top of her.
- The accused was armed with a bolo (sundang) and threatened to kill her if she made any noise.
- He forcibly removed her clothing – lowering her pants and panty – while restraining her by holding her hands, thereby rendering her unable to resist prolonged sexual assault.
- Despite her desperate cries for help, Marita’s sister, Meling, initially pretended to sleep; later, however, she intervened when Marita’s calls became more insistent.
- The assault included two separate acts of penetration following initial insertion of the accused’s fingers, with the assault continuing even after a brief interruption when Meling intervened by hitting Elming.
- After the assault, the accused tried to persuade Marita to accompany him. Although she initially fled, owing to his threat he eventually pretended to submit, only to later escape and report the crime.
- The Immediate Reporting and Medical Examination
- After recovering her senses, Marita sought help from various family members and barangay officials, despite advisement against filing a case due to fears of retaliatory violence by the accused, who had a reputation for having killed six people.
- Ultimately, she reported the crime to the barangay tanod and captain, leading to the case being forwarded to the Philippine National Police.
- A medical examination by Dr. Danilo Fami revealed a healed laceration on Marita’s hymen, corroborating physical evidence of the assault.
- Defense and Testimonies
- The accused denied the charges, alleging that on the night in question he was occupied with personal errands and only joined the gathering later; he claimed that Marita’s interactions were consensual and that she had been a virgin before the incident.
- His common-law wife, Merly Tagana (Meling), corroborated part of his testimony, denying that a rape had occurred and asserting that her husband’s actions were not wrong given the natural roles of a man and a girl.
- Marita provided a detailed, chronological testimony of the events, including the actions of the accused and Meling’s delayed intervention, which was given in a spontaneous and straightforward manner.
- Trial Court Decision
- Based on Marita’s testimony and the physical evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty of Qualified Rape and sentenced him to death.
- The trial court also considered the aggravating circumstances: Marita’s minority, the familial relationship by affinity (via common-law marriage), and the fact that the rape was committed in full view of the accused’s wife and children.
- The accused, upon appeal, challenged the credibility of Marita’s testimony and argued that the testimony of his common-law wife should have been given more weight.
Issues:
- Credibility of Witness Testimonies
- Whether the victim’s (Marita’s) testimony, despite claims of failure to meet the test of “moral certainty,” should prevail over the testimony of the accused’s common-law wife.
- The impact of family relationships on the credibility and weight of their testimonies, especially when one witness is expected to naturally sympathize with the victim.
- Classification of the Crime and Proper Offense
- Whether the evidence supports a finding of Qualified Rape, which carries the death penalty, or merely Simple Rape, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
- The appropriateness of imposing the death penalty when the Information alleged separate attendant circumstances not fully supported by the evidence (e.g., relationship by affinity and full view of relatives).
- Sufficiency and Consistency of the Evidence
- Whether the discrepancies in the common-law wife’s testimony undermine her credibility and whether her testimony should have negated that of the victim.
- If the victim’s medical and physical evidence substantiates her account of the rape despite the defense’s claims regarding her virginity status.
- Due Process and Charge Specification
- Whether convicting the accused of Qualified Rape under attendant circumstances not pleaded in the Information or Complaint violates the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
- The issue of whether prior sexual relations (or lack thereof) are a necessary element in establishing the rape offense.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)