Case Digest (G.R. No. 132875-76)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Romeo G. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001, Supreme Court En Banc, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos (accused), was charged by informations filed December 16, 1996 with two (2) counts of statutory rape (Crim. Case Nos. 96‑1985 and 96‑1986) and twelve (12) counts of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Crim. Case Nos. 96‑1987 to 96‑1998). The victim and private complainant was Ma. Rosilyn Delantar, an eleven‑year‑old girl. Upon arraignment on January 29, 1997, the accused refused to plead and the trial court entered a plea of not guilty.
At trial the prosecution presented eight main witnesses and seven rebuttal witnesses and documentary exhibits A–EEEE; the defense presented twenty‑six witnesses and Exhibits 1–153. The factual narrative presented by the prosecution—mainly through Rosilyn’s detailed testimony—described multiple instances from June to July 1996 in which the accused kissed, fondled, inserted his finger into, and pressed his penis against Rosilyn’s genitalia, including two occasions the trial court found consummated rape. Physical examination by Dr. Emmanuel Aranas showed an elastic hymen with healed lacerations and a vagina offering moderate resistance; the report concluded the subject was in a “non‑virgin state physically” but found no external signs of force.
The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 62, Judge Roberto C. Diokno) rendered judgment: it convicted the accused of two counts of statutory rape (Crim. Case Nos. 96‑1985, 96‑1986) and six counts of acts of lasciviousness (Crim. Case Nos. 96‑1987, 96‑1988, 96‑1989, 96‑1990, 96‑1992, 96‑1993), and acquitted him on six other counts (Crim. Case Nos. 96‑1991, 96‑1994, 96‑1995, 96‑1996, 96‑1997, 96‑1998) for reasonable doubt. Sentences included reclusion perpetua for each statutory rape count and indeterminate terms for the lasciviousness convictions; moral damages were also awarded. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal the accused advanced five principal assignments of error: (A) that his conviction was improperly based on the private complainant’s testimony given alleged indicia of inconsistency and untruths; (B) that the trial court disregarded the significance of conflicting statements by the complainant; (C) that the complainant failed to properly identify the accused; (D) that the complainant was not shown to be under twelve years of age when the incidents occurred; and (E) that rape was not proven. The...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in convicting the accused based on the private complainant’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies and untruths (credibility)?
- Did the trial court err in disregarding the significance of alleged conflicting statements given by the private complainant?
- Did the trial court err in finding that the private complainant identified the accused despite earlier failures to identify him from photographs?
- Was there sufficient proof that the private complainant was below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the alleged incidents?
- Was rape (and acts of lasciviousness under R.A. 7610) proven beyond reasonable ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)