A.C. No. 12353 - Melody H. Santos vs. Atty. Emilio S. Paaa, Jr.

Plaintiff/Appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands, Islands.
Defendant/Appellant: Filemon Mirasol.
Complainant: Modesta Gelvezon, a widow aged thirty-six, residing in the barrio of Palaka, Valladolid, Occidental Negros.
Secondary Witness: Rosalina Gasendo, the 14-year-old daughter of the complainant.

On the night of the alleged incident, between 1 and 2 o’clock in the morning, Modesta Gelvezon was awakened by a disturbance while in her residence.
The complainant asserted that a man was attempting to commit rape by trying to lie with her, which prompted her to light a match and identify the intruder as Filemon Mirasol.
Modesta shouted for help, upbraiding the intruder as he fled by jumping out of the window, only awakening her daughter Rosalina.

Modesta detailed that the accused was seen in the act of attempting to penetrate her, with her account varying between that of an “attempt” and one of “partial penetration” as later testified at trial.
She later informed her daughter and the local chief of police regarding the incident.

Rosalina initially stated, in an affidavit, that she did not recognize the intruder and had to ask her mother about his identity.
During trial, however, she contradicted her earlier statement by identifying the intruder as Filemon Mirasol “by the back of his neck,” citing a physical condition (being thin) as the basis for her recognition.

The chief of police of Valladolid submitted typewritten affidavits from the complainant, Rosalina, and a relative, Purification Flores, alleging that the accused had knelt before the complainant to plead for forgiveness in his presence.
Despite these affidavits, discrepancies emerged as the physical setting and context of such alleged acts were not clearly established in the documents.

The accused, Filemon Mirasol, was twenty-four years old, having been married for two years to a young wife, who was described by the trial judge as “younger and better-looking than the offended party.”
Prior to this incident, there had been a past intimate relationship between the complainant and the accused, though according to the complainant, any such past was terminated before the marriage of the accused.
The accused’s state of mind and character were examined in light of recent personal tragedy, having lost his first child only days before the incident, and being employed as an inspector for a transportation company.
The defense argued that the filing of the complaint was motivated by resentment and revenge, highlighting that the complainant had been the accused’s sweetheart in the past and that he had ceased financial support upon her husband’s discovery of their prior relationship.

Whether the complainant’s account of the attempted rape was credible given the inconsistencies in her statements regarding the nature of the act (attempt versus partial penetration).
The impact of the contradictory testimony provided by her daughter, Rosalina, specifically regarding the recognition of the accused.

Whether the evidentiary support, particularly the affidavits from the chief of police and conflicting statements, was reliable enough to establish the act of attempted rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
The question of whether the physical evidence and facts surrounding the alleged incident support the prosecution’s version.

Whether the accused’s personal circumstances (recent bereavement and marital context) and his known relationship with the complainant affected the probability of him committing the alleged crime.
Whether the defense’s assertion of motives of resentment and revenge by the complainant should impact the evaluation of the evidence.

Whether the prosecution met its burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the identified inconsistencies in the witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.