Case Digest (G.R. No. 105676)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Espanol y de los Santos, G.R. No. 105676, April 10, 1996, Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Benjamin Espanol y de los Santos; the private offended party is Teofila de los Santos.On August 24, 1989 Teofila filed a complaint which led to an information charging appellant with rape allegedly committed on or about April 20, 1989 in Barangay San Francisco, City of Dapitan: that appellant, armed with a handgun and by means of force, violence and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with Teofila against her will. Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment. Trial before the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Dipolog City, Branch 10, ensued.
At trial, Teofila testified that after a communal work (pahina) she and appellant walked home alone; appellant stopped, restrained her, boxed her thigh, pointed a handgun at her, removed their clothing, lay on top of her and had sexual intercourse despite her resistance. She reported the incident to her husband immediately and to police the next day. Dr. Filipinas S. Nielo examined Teofila on April 22, 1989 and found that the vagina admitted two fingers, multiple old vaginal lacerations, slight vaginal bleeding (on regular menses), and a contusion hematoma at the right anterior middle thigh; the vaginal smear was negative for spermatozoa.
Appellant admitted the sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual because they were lovers and that they were surprised by peeping toms while at a copra dryer; defense witnesses (Gil Saliot, Honorato Altamera, Catalino Dahilog Jr., and Policarpio Donggon) testified to seeing or witnessing circumstances suggesting consent. Appellant had, however, submitted an affidavit dated May 26, 1989 denying the allegations. The trial court credited the testimony of Teofila, found inconsistencies and impeaching contradictions in the defense witnesses' statements and affidavits, and convicted appellant of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity of P30,000 and costs.
Appellant appe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in giving full credence to the testimony of the private offended party despite alleged inconsistencies in her statements?
- Did the trial court err in disregarding appellant’s evidence that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that he and the private offended party were lovers?
- Was appellant’s guilt pro...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)