Case Digest (G.R. No. 205382)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Mauricio Hallarte y Mendoza, G.R. No. 205382, April 02, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) charged Mauricio Hallarte y Mendoza (accused-appellant) by two Informations: Criminal Case No. Q-00-93225 (Simple Rape) and Criminal Case No. Q-00-93226 (Rape by Sexual Assault). During arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty; at pre-trial the parties stipulated to the minority of both child complainants (identified in the record as AAA and BBB).
The incidents alleged occurred on June 4, 2000 (AAA, then 7 years old), when appellant allegedly dragged AAA into his house, lowered her garments and raped her; and on June 17, 2000 (BBB, alleged 8 years old), when appellant allegedly inserted his penis into BBB’s mouth and threatened her. Each child later gave sworn statements to police; AAA was medically examined by Dr. Jaime Rodrigo Leal whose medico-legal report showed “no laceration nor discharge” but noted such findings do not exclude sexual abuse.
Appellant denied the charges and raised alibi defenses, testifying he was working in Novaliches on June 4 and at Vanguard Agency in Kalayaan on June 17. He presented a certification from Vanguard and co-worker testimony to corroborate attendance, although Vanguard had no timecard or logbook.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City, after trial convicted appellant on April 7, 2009: in Q-00-93225 (Simple Rape) it imposed reclusion perpetua and awarded AAA P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P25,000 exemplary damages; in Q-00-93226 (Rape by Sexual Assault) it imposed an indeterminate penalty (prision mayor to reclusion temporal equivalent) and awarded BBB P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P25,000 exemplary damages. The RTC credited the victims’ testimonies, rejected the alibi for lack of clear and convincing proof, and did not apply the special qualifying circumstance of relationship because it was not pleaded in the Informations.
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated April 20, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04061 the CA affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty in...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellant’s convictions for Simple Rape (Crim. Case No. Q-00-93225) and Rape by Sexual Assault (Crim. Case No. Q-00-9...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)