G.R. No. 137597 - People vs. Navarro

The case involves the People of the Philippines versus appellants Jason S. Navarro and Solomon S. Navarro, with co-accused Roberto B. Olila, who was later acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence.
The trial court at Branch 28, Mandaue City, found Jason and Solomon Navarro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, as well as ordering them to jointly indemnify the victim, AAA, in the amount of P50,000.00.

On July 26, 1998, around 11:30 p.m., the victim, a college freshman studying BS Biology, had just finished a project with a classmate and was walking along OsmeAa Boulevard in Cebu City when she was approached.
A Tamaraw FX vehicle driven by Jason S. Navarro, with passengers Reynante Olila (front passenger), Solomon S. Navarro and Roberto Olila (rear seats), stopped and asked the victim for directions.
Claiming to be from Toledo City and apparently lost, the group compels the victim to accompany them to “Baseline,” after which they continued seeking directions despite her offering assistance.

The group, accompanied by the victim, proceeded to Lahug where they purchased liquor; some members remained in the vehicle, while the victim joined those who alighted.
On the morning of July 27, 1998, at around 2:00 p.m., they reached a secluded area designated as Lovers Lane behind the Cebu Plaza Hotel.
Further along, around 4:00 a.m., the group arrived at a reclamation area in Subangdaku, Mandaue City. Here, events escalated as the vehicle halted, and the dynamics among the occupants shifted to a committed course of criminal conduct.

While in the vehicle, Jason S. Navarro attempted to initiate unwanted physical contact by kissing the victim on her left cheek, an act that was repeatedly rebuffed by the victim.
After a series of exchanges, the situation deteriorated:

Jason covered the victim’s mouth and proceeded to assault her physically.
Accompanied by Solomon’s physical restraint of the victim, Jason removed the victim’s short pants and underwear.
The prosecution presented detailed testimony that Jason then attempted to insert his penis into the victim’s vagina. In doing so, he used his saliva as a lubricant, insisting on his act despite the victim’s protests.

The victim provided a verbatim narrative, including precise details such as the vehicle’s seating arrangement and the actions (like moving the seat backward) which facilitated the assault.
The force applied was evidenced not only by the physical actions (covering the mouth and punching the victim’s midsection) but also by the accordance with the evidentiary medical findings showing contusions on the victim’s right arm and breast and a laceration in the hymen.

After the physical assault, as the victim resisted by attempting to escape from the vehicle, she managed to run barefoot, clothed minimally in a T-shirt and panties.
A bystander, Nestor Igot, witnessed the event, recorded a detailed account of the victim’s appearance and her urgent call for help, which corroborated the series of events.
The victim later underwent a medical examination that substantiated her claims by highlighting injuries consistent with the assault.
Following these developments, the police arrested Jason Navarro between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. at the Islacom building and subsequently apprehended the other accused.
The trial court, basing its decision on the coherent and extensive testimony of the victim and supporting evidence, found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, while acquitting co-accused Roberto Olila for insufficiency of evidence.

Whether the information charging the appellants with rape, even though it did not explicitly specify that force or intimidation was used, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Whether the omission of specific allegations regarding physical force in the information could be remedied by the competent evidence presented during trial.

Whether the evidence, including the victim’s detailed testimony, physical injuries, and corroborative witness accounts, sufficiently established that non-consensual sexual intercourse was committed.
Whether the prosecution successfully demonstrated that any physical act—even slight penile contact accompanied by force—constituted the crime of rape as defined under the law.

Whether the victim’s behavior—accepting the ride and later fleeing the scene—could be interpreted as a sign of consent or, alternatively, as evidence of coercion and genuine fear.
The significance of the appellants’ flight from the scene immediately after the incident in establishing their intent and participation in the criminal act.

Whether the appellants’ failure to raise objections on the sufficiency of the information before their plea constituted a waiver of such objections.
Whether prior case law, particularly People v. Torellos and People v. Palarca, applies to the present case, supporting the notion that even deficient charge wording may be cured by subsequent evidence.