Case Digest (G.R. No. 78530)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Florencio Sarra, G.R. No. 78530, March 06, 1990, Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court. The case is a direct appeal from the Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Branch 24, Maasin, Southern Leyte (Hon. Lucio F. Saavedra, presiding judge).The prosecution (plaintiff-appellee) charged Florencio Sarra (accused-appellant) by information with rape under Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, alleging that on June 28, 1984 at about 11:00 p.m. in Barangay Libertad, Maasin, Southern Leyte, the accused, with lustful intent and by means of force, threats, intimidation and violence, assaulted and ravished complainant Virgilia P. Sombelon, a married woman, causing physical injuries. The trial court (RTC) on March 6, 1987 convicted the accused and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered payment of costs, and awarded P30,000.00 moral damages to the complainant.
The material facts were essentially undisputed as to place, date and that the complainant’s husband, Vivencio Sombelon, was away (about 5–7 kilometers distant) when the incident allegedly occurred; Vivencio had entrusted the accused to look after his tuba-producing coconut trees. The complainant testified that late in the evening she went to close the kitchen door and the accused, hiding behind the door, grabbed her arm, struck her left breast, forced her down, lay on top of her, tore her panty and accomplished full insertion, and that she lost consciousness and later found semen in her vagina; she described injuries corroborated by Dr. Jaime Carbonilla (swelling of right middle finger; contusion of left chest and right leg).
The accused denied rape but admitted having had consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant earlier the same day at about 4:00 p.m., claiming they had been lovers since February 2, 1983; he presented Petronilo Itchon as a corroborating witness. The defense version and witness testimony contained contradictions and inconsistencies noted by the trial court. The prosecution did not produce the torn undergarment as an exhibit; the RTC found that the complainant’s husband disposed of it upon learning of the incident.
On appeal the accused raised four principal assignments of error challenging: (I) the finding that force or intimidation was used; (II) lack of tenacious resistance by the victim; (III) the trial court’s acceptance of the victim’s te...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court correct in finding that the crime was committed with the use of force or intimidation?
- Did the failure to show tenacious resistance by the victim bar conviction for rape?
- Was the trial court justified in giving credence to the victim’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies?
- Should the accused have been acquitted on t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)