G.R. No. 45467 - People vs. Bawasanta y Deserto

The accused, Dominador Domended y Velasco, employed Lina Casupang—a 15‐year‑old from Pangasinan—as household and canteen help.
Lina was brought from her province on 24 July 1997 to work at the accused’s carinderia in Marikina City, where she worked long hours and also assisted with domestic chores on Saturdays.

On the night of 30 July 1997, after closing the carinderia later than usual due to the accused’s sideline as a plumber, Lina and the accused boarded a tricycle on their way home.
While still on board the tricycle, the accused—reeking of alcohol—initiated physical contact by kissing Lina and, upon alighting near a waiting shed outside the Empress Subdivision, forcibly pulled her across the street to a vacant lot.
In a dark and deserted, rain-drenched setting, the accused forcibly restrained Lina despite her cries and attempts to resist.
The assault involved the accused removing parts of Lina’s clothing and repeatedly attempting to penetrate her: he used a combination of kissing, physical force, and, after an initial attempt with his soft penis, inserted his finger to intensify the assault.
Lina’s desperate attempts to resist—pushing him back and even biting his lips—were met by the accused’s superior strength until he finally subdued her by attempting to strangle her.

Lina Casupang detailed the events in her direct testimony, which emphasized the rape through force and intimidation; she also admitted during cross-examination that her earlier affidavit contained inaccuracies made under fear.
Criselda Alano, a member of the accused’s household, testified that in the early hours of 31 July 1997 she observed Lina’s disheveled and wet appearance upon arriving at the house, prompting Lina to reveal the assault.
Additional testimony by Yolanda Alano hinted at a possible illicit relationship between the accused and Lina, although she refrained from confronting or substantiating such claim.
Medical examination by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes of the PNP crime laboratory revealed physical injuries on Lina: a deep fresh healing laceration at the 3:00 o’clock position, a shallow fresh healing laceration at the 9:00 o’clock position on her hymen, as well as other findings supportive of a non-consensual act.

The accused denied the rape allegation, contending that the encounter was consensual and attributing conflicting details—for instance, alleging that Lina had admitted reluctance due to a fear of family admonition and that she was engaged in a mutual relationship.
He cited Lina’s earlier affidavit, which mentioned that his penis was soft and that only his finger had been inserted, as material inconsistencies meant to undermine her credibility.
Defense further argued that the complaint was instigated by disgruntled relatives (notably Criselda Alano), alleging a family feud and even suggesting a monetary motive behind the filing of the case.
Despite the defense’s presentation, the prosecution emphasized the immediate reporting of the incident by Lina and the corroborative medical evidence as pivotal in establishing the occurrence of rape.

Whether the discrepancies between Lina Casupang’s affidavit and her direct testimony in court are material to her credibility.
The weight to be accorded to her account given that affidavits, being ex parte, are generally deemed less reliable than testimony given under oath in open court.

Whether the findings from the medico-legal report, particularly the fresh healing lacerations on her hymen, sufficiently corroborate her version of being raped.
The significance of a soft (flaccid) penis in the context of rape and whether it can produce injuries consistent with the crime.

Whether the claim of consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant can negate the forceful aspect required for rape.
If the alleged involvement of Lina’s relatives in extorting money from the accused’s family diminishes the credibility of the rape allegation.

How inconsistencies in certain segments of the complainant’s testimony should be assessed in light of her overall narrative and the circumstances under which statements were given.
Whether such discrepancies are sufficient to create reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence of rape.