Case Digest (G.R. No. 172323)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Judy Salidaga y Quintano, G.R. No. 172323, January 29, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.The respondent in the criminal information was Judy Salidaga y Quintano (accused-appellant); the prosecution is the People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee). An Information dated December 20, 2002 charged appellant with rape, alleging that on or about December 16, 2002 in Pasig City he, armed with a knife and by force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with the complainant AAA against her will. Upon arraignment on February 6, 2003, appellant pleaded not guilty and trial followed.
At trial the prosecution presented only the offended party, AAA, who testified that she was alone and asleep when appellant went on top of her, poked a knife at her neck, and she lost consciousness from fear; she then related that appellant inserted his sex organ into her vagina and left. AAA reported the incident to the police on December 20, 2002. The prosecution also offered AAA’s sworn statement and an Initial Medico‑Legal Report from the PNP crime laboratory indicating the hymen finding “Carunculae myrtiformis” and a conclusion that the subject was in a “non‑virgin state physically.”
Appellant testified in his own behalf, claiming that he and AAA had been living together as lovers from June to November 2002, that they had quarreled, and that on the date alleged he was installing flooring at another house (an alibi). The defense presented no documentary evidence.
On November 26, 2003 the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 166, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. A timely Notice of Appeal was filed and, pursuant to People v. Mateo, the records were referred to the Court of Appeals.
On November 16...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove appellant’s guilt of rape beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can the lone testimony of a victim who claims to have been unconscious during the assault, together with a medico‑legal report showing only a “non‑virgin state,” sufficiently establish guilt and ide...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)