G.R. No. 41248 - People vs. Collado

On July 31, 1933, between 3 and 4 in the afternoon, Paula Bautista—a young, married woman residing in the eastern part of Bacnotan, La Union—was at home alone with her three-year-old child, who was asleep at the time.
The accused, Marcelino Collado (alias Ninoy), took advantage of her solitude by visiting her house under the pretext of asking for a glass of water.

Once inside the house, without affording Paula Bautista the opportunity to defend herself, the accused stealthily approached her.
He embraced and kissed her, and without further warning, he caught hold of her breasts.
Upon recovering from the initial shock, the offended party defended herself vigorously by biting the accused on the right side of his chest.
Simultaneously, she cried out for help and attempted to strike him with a nearby bolo.
Despite her resistance, the accused, being stronger and more agile, managed to hold her by the arms until Crispulo Ariola, a bystander and the first to come to her aid, arrived.
Realizing that his intended act of lasciviousness had been thwarted and surprised by Ariola’s sudden appearance, the accused fled from the scene by jumping down from the house.

The trial court found, after carefully reviewing all available evidence and the testimonies of multiple witnesses, that the accused had committed the crime of acts of lasciviousness as defined in Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
The court noted that the accused had threatened Paula Bautista with a dagger to coerce her compliance, thereby intensifying the gravity of the offense.
Based on the established facts, the trial court sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, including the corresponding legal accessories and costs.

The appellant (the accused) raised four alleged errors in his appeal, claiming that the trial court had committed reversible errors.
He sought to establish that the occurrence of the crime was improbable because, at the time of the incident, he was aware of the presence of witnesses nearby—specifically, Crispulo Ariola, his cousin through Paula Bautista, and defense witness Paulino Palaroan—engaged in conversation approximately 6 meters from the house.
The accused further argued that another defense witness, Laureano Nebrija, testified to being in Paula Bautista’s house at the time, which he believed rendered the commission of the crime highly unlikely.
However, evidence and other testimonies, particularly those of Crispulo Ariola, Luis Cariaso (the second prosecution witness), and Paulino Palaroan, corroborated that the events unfolded as described by the trial court, including the quick escape of the accused upon noticing the arrival of Ariola.

Whether the prosecution’s evidence, consisting of witness testimonies and physical evidence from the scene, was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that acts of lasciviousness were committed by the accused.
Whether the narrative provided by the accused regarding the proximity of witnesses and an alleged alternative version of events holds any merit against the established factual matrix.

Whether the conflicting accounts—specifically, the defense witness Laureano Nebrija’s claim of being present versus other testimonies indicating his absence—affect the overall credibility and reliability of the evidence.
Whether the testimony concerning the hurried exit of the accused, as affirmed by Paulino Palaroan, sufficiently negates the possibility of an alibi for the accused.

Whether the trial court was justified in considering the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed in the victim’s dwelling, even though such a circumstance was not specifically alleged in the original information.
Whether the precedent from United States vs. Campo supports the modification of the sentence on account of the proven aggravating factors during trial.