G.R. No. 189434 - Marcos, Jr. vs. Republic

Elpidio Magaluna was charged with rape committed on or about the 19th of June, 1972.
The alleged crime occurred at midnight in the municipality of General Luna, Surigao del Norte, at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Cancio E. Berte.
The information stated that Magaluna, through pretense and abuse of confidence, entered the house where Judith G. Berte (the complainant and his niece) and other family members were present.

According to the prosecution’s version, upon entering the premises, Magaluna used a sharp-pointed bolo (sundangay) to threaten, force, and intimidate the complainant.
It was alleged that while Judith was asleep or in a vulnerable state, Magaluna overpowered her, dragged her into a room, and committed rape by forcibly penetrating her with his penis.
Testimonies detailed that during the struggle, Judith’s dress, chemise, and intimate garments were torn, and physical evidence was subsequently presented, including torn garments and corroborative findings by a medical examiner.

The complainant, Judith G. Berte, testified that she was awakened by an unexpected call and later assaulted by the accused; her account included details of being gagged with a towel, dragged into a locked room, and overpowered.
Her sister, Emalyn Ravelo, corroborated these events by recounting how she witnessed part of the incident and the ensuing commotion, including the torn clothing.
Dr. Aida Cervantes, the examining physician, reported findings of loss of virginity, evidence of hymenal tear, and vaginal congestion consistent with recent sexual intercourse—even if physical injuries were not dramatic.
The accused’s version presented an alternative narrative, alleging consensual behavior initiated by Judith, along with a description that minimized the elements of force and threat—in essence, portraying a scenario involving a massage and non-penetrative contact.

At trial, Magaluna pleaded not guilty; however, the trial court found him guilty of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty originally computed as “seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day minimum to twenty (20) years maximum” (Reclusion Temporal) and ordered him to pay moral damages of ₱5,000.00, based on precedent concerning award for moral damages in rape cases.
Magaluna appealed the trial court’s decision, contending errors in the evaluation of witness credibility and the factual determination of the elements constituting rape.
The case was reviewed by the Court of Appeals, which initially certified it to the Supreme Court. Later, the Intermediate Appellate Court remanded the matter for proper penalty imposition and ultimately, after failing to render judgment, re-certified the case to the Supreme Court for review.

The Supreme Court, while giving deference to the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, noted that the only substantive error was in the imposition of the proper penalty and civil indemnity.
It held that the penalty for rape, considering the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the exclusivity of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over reclusion perpetua, should be reclusion perpetua and not an indeterminate sentence.
Furthermore, taking into account the violation of familial trust and the aggravating circumstances, the civil indemnity (moral damages) originally set at ₱5,000.00 was increased to ₱50,000.00.

Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses (i.e., the complainant, her sister, and the examining physician) while rejecting the self-exculpatory testimony of Magaluna.
Whether the perceived inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts—such as differences between her testimony in court and her affidavit—were sufficient to undermine her credibility.

Whether the elements of rape as provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code were present, especially considering the disputed points on:

The use of force and intimidation (e.g., the alleged presence and use of a sharp-pointed bolo).
The exact nature of the physical penetration (whether it was by the accused’s penis or his finger).

Whether the trial court’s imposition of an indeterminate penalty (Reclusion Temporal) was appropriate when the offense of rape, as amended, mandates a single and indivisible penalty—namely, reclusion perpetua.
Whether the moral damages awarded to the complainant were correctly computed and substantiated given the nature of the offense and the violation of familial trust.