G.R. No. 173134 - Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Ferdez

On or about August 23, 2007, in Dasmariñas, Cavite, the accused-appellant, Ronald Nical y Alminario, allegedly committed rape against AAA, a maid employed in a household.
The incident occurred around 1:00 p.m. when AAA was folding laundry inside a room of the big house.
The accused, a household helper residing in an adjacent smaller house, suddenly entered the room and immediately embraced her.

AAA attempted to escape after being seized; however, the accused grabbed her shorts and forcefully pushed her against a concrete wall, causing her head to strike the surface and rendering her dizzy.
Despite her initial resistance by kicking him and attempting to flee, the accused pursued her, catching up in the sala where he again embraced her.
During this encounter, AAA lost consciousness momentarily and, upon regaining her senses, found herself naked with the accused partially undressed, with his penis reportedly inserted into her vagina, causing her pain.
Following the assault, AAA managed to escape, running to a nearby house, where she communicated the incident to another maid. Subsequently, her sister BBB was notified and together they reported the matter to barangay officials.
Two days later, AAA submitted herself for a medical examination by Dr. Angelito Magno at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH).

Dr. Magno, the gynecologist who examined AAA, noted that while there were no marked lacerations, abrasions, or contusions on her private parts, her hymen was found to be no longer intact.
Although Dr. Magno admitted that prior sexual activity might account for the state of the hymen, he clarified that his findings did not exclude the possibility of rape by the accused-appellant.
The medical evidence was presented to counter the accused’s claim that the absence of physical injuries proved the non-occurrence of rape.

AAA provided a detailed, consistent, and credible account of the events, including her direct observations and physical sensations experienced during and after the assault.
In contrast, the accused testified that AAA had entered the room and sat on his stomach, after which he allegedly shooed her away, claiming that she stumbled and fell, which resulted in her head injury and brief loss of consciousness.
The accused maintained that any claim of rape was motivated by jealousy, arguing that she was involved with another household helper whom he was courting.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dasmariñas, Cavite, Branch 90, convicted the accused-appellant on June 5, 2009, finding that the evidence showed he committed the crime of rape.
The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages (initially awarding Php25,000.00 for exemplary damages, among other amounts).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, with a modification that increased the exemplary damages award to Php30,000.00 and imposed interest on all monetary awards at 6% per annum.
Both the accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) waived the filing of supplemental briefs during the automatic review.

The accused argued that the testimony and the medical evidence were insufficient to establish rape beyond reasonable doubt, contending that the absence of physical injuries negated his culpability.
The accused also contended that his right to due process was violated because the Information did not expressly allege that he raped AAA while she was unconscious, thus asserting that convicting him on such an uncharged ground was unfair.
The prosecution, however, relied on the consistent and detailed narration by AAA, supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, to substantiate the use of force and violence during the commission of the crime.

Whether the absence of significant physical injuries or fresh lacerations, as evidenced by the medical examination, is a basis to negate the occurrence of rape.
Whether the victim’s testimony, despite relying on circumstantial evidence and the medical report showing only the state of the hymen, is strong enough to establish the accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether convicting the accused-appellant on a ground (i.e., the possibility that the victim was unconscious) not explicitly alleged in the Information violates his right to due process.
Whether the inconsistency between the charge (rape committed by means of force, violence, and intimidation) and the inferred element of unconsciousness affects the fairness of the trial.

Whether the use of force and violence as evidenced by the circumstances of the assault sufficiently fulfills the elements of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the lack of corroborative physical injuries should preclude a conviction when the victim’s detailed account is supported by other circumstantial and testimonial evidence.