Title
People vs. Pedido y Beloera
Case
G.R. No. 238451
Decision Date
Nov 18, 2020
The Supreme Court affirms Armando Pedido y Beloera's rape conviction, validating the lower courts' penalties and damages based on circumstantial evidence and the victim's injuries.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 238451)

Facts:

  • Armando Pedido y Beloera (accused-appellant) was charged with rape against a 76-year-old woman, referred to as AAA.
  • The incident occurred on the night of December 22, 2012, or early dawn of December 23, 2012, in Negros Oriental, Philippines.
  • The Information alleged that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will, using force and lewd design.
  • AAA's nephew, BBB, found her outside her house on December 23, 2012, and discovered blood on the floor upon bringing her inside.
  • Another relative, CCC, found the accused-appellant lying on the bed and AAA bloodied on the floor.
  • AAA did not provide a clear response when questioned.
  • The accused-appellant fled but was later apprehended with bloodstains on his underwear and dried marijuana leaves.
  • Medical examinations of AAA revealed contusions, abrasions, and severe vaginal lacerations.
  • The defense did not present evidence, and a demurrer to evidence was denied.
  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused-appellant on May 25, 2015, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering damages to AAA.
  • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's ruling on November 29, 2017, with modifications to monetary awards.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision which upheld the RTC's conviction of the accused-appellant for rape.
  • The Court found that the prosecution established the...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court highlighted that the essential elements for a rape conviction include carnal knowledge and the use of force or intimidation.
  • It acknowledged the challenges in proving rape, especially when the victim cannot testify, as AAA had died before her account could be presented in court.
  • Direct evidence is not mandatory for conviction; circumstantial evidence can suffice if it meets specific criteria.
  • The requirements for circumstantial evidence, as per Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, include multiple proven circumstances that lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Circumstantial evidence in this case included the accused-appellant being the last person with AAA, his flight from the scene, bloodstains on his underwear, an...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.