Case Digest (G.R. No. 238622)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Randy Licaros y Flores, G.R. No. 238622, December 07, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Randy Licaros y Flores, was charged by Information dated July 3, 2009 with Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code for an incident alleged to have occurred on April 9, 2009. At arraignment on February 15, 2011 he pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial before Branch 214, Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The prosecution's case was that the victim, identified in the records as AAA, while at her aunt BBB’s house after drinking, was assisted by the accused to go to a bedroom upstairs; once she lay down, the accused suddenly went on top of her, kissed her, pinned her hands and forcibly removed her garments, after which he inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA testified she struggled, tried to shout but could not, and later confided in her stepmother and mother; a medical examination recorded healed lacerations to her hymen consistent with prior blunt force or penetrating trauma.
The defense denied the accusation, presenting testimony that the accused merely assisted AAA to her room during a drinking session and that she was later gone the next morning; no corroborating evidence was offered to counter AAA’s account. The RTC, in a Decision dated March 16, 2016, found AAA’s testimony credible and supported by the medico-legal findings, convicted the accused of Rape under Article 266-A, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and awarded P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P30,000 exemplary damages (plus legal interest).
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated August 14, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08235, the CA affirmed the conviction but modified the monetary awards, increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000 each in light of prevail...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the lower courts commit error in giving full credence to AAA’s testimony?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential element of force or intimidation in the commission o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)