Case Digest (G.R. No. 128363)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Emiliano Capareda, G.R. No. 128363, May 27, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Emiliano Capareda, was charged by separate Informations with four counts of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code for alleged sexual assaults on Rizalyn Torres Lufera (then aged 13) occurring in June and July 1992 at the Torres household in Cagayan de Oro City. The four Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 92-2054, 92-2085, 92-2086 and 92-2087) alleged carnal knowledge by force and intimidation; the accusatory language was substantially identical except for dates. On arraignment (March 16, 1994) the appellant pleaded not guilty and the four cases were tried jointly.
At trial the prosecution presented Rizalyn’s testimony recounting four separate incidents in which the appellant entered her room while she was studying, seized or threatened her (once showing a clenched fist and on three occasions brandishing an eighteen-inch bolo), forced her to the floor, undressed her and inserted his penis into her vagina. She testified that she cried, felt pain, and complied because of fear for her life and for her family after the appellant threatened to kill them if she reported the incidents. Medical examination at Northern Mindanao Regional Training Hospital showed Rizalyn was about six weeks pregnant on August 31, 1992; she gave birth on March 26, 1993. The police issued a warrant of arrest (December 4, 1992) and ultimately apprehended the appellant in February 1994.
The appellant admitted sexual intercourse with Rizalyn but invoked a “sweetheart” defense, claiming she consented and that they had an ongoing illicit relationship; his stepson, Almor Dagsang, testified to seeing consensual encounters on two occasions. The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25) convicted Capareda of rape in the four cases and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count, ordered indemnity of P50,000, and directed him to acknowledge and support the child. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence, the applicability of aggravating circumstances, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the appellant’s conviction for four counts of rape supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt (i.e., were the acts committed against the victim’s will and not consensual)?
- Were the penalties and damages awarded by the trial court proper, including consideration of the use of a deadly weapon and the applicability of the alternative ci...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)