G.R. No. 73534 - People vs. Rosario

On October 26, 1979, at around 12:00 noon, Guillerma Aquino, then about 17 years old, was returning home after attending classes.
While approximately 500 meters from her residence, Guillerma, feeling the need to use the comfort room, decided to visit her sister Marina Aquino’s house.
The house belonged to Marina, who was married to Danny Rosario, the son of the accused, Federico Rosario.
Finding the front door locked, Guillerma entered through the back door into a windowless comfort room.

As she used the comfort room, Guillerma encountered Federico Rosario unexpectedly.
The accused, armed with a bolo held in his left hand, threatened her by positioning the blade near her face.
In an attempt to silence her, the accused covered her mouth and ordered her to remove her panties.
Despite her resistance and efforts to push him away, the accused, being stronger, forcefully boxed her in the stomach, rendering her momentarily unconscious.
Upon regaining consciousness, Guillerma discovered pain and bleeding in her private parts, indicating a physical assault.
Standing by the door and brandishing his bolo, the accused threatened to kill her and her parents if she disclosed the incident.

Afraid of the accused’s threats, Guillerma refrained from reporting the incident immediately, even to her parents.
It was only in May 1980 that her father, noticing a change in her physical appearance, confronted her.
Under duress from her father’s questioning and physical punishment, Guillerma confessed the assault.
On May 13, 1980, her father brought her to the San Carlos City General Hospital where Dr. Wilfredo Claudio confirmed her condition as being seven (7) months pregnant.
Subsequently, a case was initiated against the accused for the crime of rape.

Federico Rosario pleaded not guilty and asserted an alibi, contending that he was engaged in rendering his services as a “hilot.”
He claimed that earlier on the morning of October 26, 1979, he attended to a medical emergency involving the mother of Alberto Rosario at their residence.
His narrative stated:

He arrived at Alberto Rosario’s place around 11:00 AM, treated the patient, had lunch with them, and left by 1:00 PM.
He later proceeded to Baldog, San Carlos City to attend to another patient, Dodong Gonzales, leaving that area by 3:00 PM.

The defense further argued it was unlikely for a man of his age (61 years old) to have committed the rape, claiming the physical struggle shown by the complainant was incompatible with his capacity.

The prosecution relied primarily on Guillerma Aquino’s testimony, as is typical in rape cases where the experiences of the complainant and the accused are the main sources of evidence.
Despite some inconsistencies and minor contradictions in her recounting of the sequence of events, her overall testimony was deemed credible.
The defense pointed to perceived inconsistencies:

In her initial testimony and affidavit, the complainant described a scenario where she lost consciousness after being boxed.
In later testimony, she testified that she partially regained semi-consciousness and witnessed additional acts before the assault was completed.

The trial court, however, found that these minor discrepancies did not detract from the fundamental narrative of the assault.

The trial court described Guillerma Aquino as a “guileless lass” of 17 years, from a rural barangay, whose testimony was spontaneous and truthful.
The inconsistencies in her testimony were attributed to the natural effects of trauma, rather than intentional misrepresentation.
The court underscored that her physical examination confirming a seven-month pregnancy decisively corroborated her account of the assault.
The defense’s claim regarding the delayed report of the incident was rebutted with precedents noting that victims, especially young girls, may delay disclosure due to fear and coercion.

Whether the trial court erred in crediting the complainant’s testimony despite noted inconsistencies.
Whether the minor discrepancies in her account were sufficient to undermine her overall credibility.

Whether the appellate court should re-evaluate the trial court’s factual determinations regarding the incident.
Whether the trial court’s observations on the demeanor and spontaneous manner of the complainant’s testimony warrant deference.

Whether the accused’s submitted alibi, placing him away from the scene of the crime, is credible or corroborated.
Whether the claim that a man of 61 years old could not realistically commit the rape is a sufficient defense.

How the intrinsic nature of rape cases, which often heavily depend on the victim’s testimony, impacts the standard of proof required.
Whether the cumulative evidence justifies a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.