G.R. No. 202303 - Villasenor vs. Ombudsman

The case involves the conviction of accused-appellants Charlie Villorente and Teresita Villorente for the complex crime of abduction with rape.
The offense occurred on or about March 25, 1986, in Kalibo, Aklan, where the accused used deceit and abuse of confidence to abduct a minor domestic helper, Jona Neron, for the purpose of committing rape.
The crime is characterized as complex because the act of abduction functioned as the necessary means to commit the rape.

On March 15, 1986, Claire Tioco, employer of Jona Neron, encountered a man later identified as Charlie Villorente attempting to fetch Jona under false pretenses (claiming that her father was sick).
On March 25, 1986, a woman claiming to be Jona’s mother—who was later identified as accused Teresita Villorente—visited Claire Tioco’s house and persuaded Jona to accompany her.

Jona Neron left the employer’s house accompanied by Teresita Villorente, under the pretext provided by the latter.
The trio was transported by jeep and then by tricycle from Kalibo towards Balete, with a detour through designated barangays, until they reached the residence of Charlie Villorente in Barangay Ogsip.

Upon arrival at the accused’s residence, Jona was restrained and repeatedly threatened by Charlie Villorente who brandished a bolo.
Jona testified that she was forced into sexual intercourse on multiple occasions (twice on the first night and once on subsequent nights), despite her attempts to resist.
Physical evidence and medical examination by Dr. Emily Bacolod revealed old lacerations and other signs consistent with sexual abuse.

Claire Tioco recounted her initial encounter with Charlie and subsequent events leading to Jona’s abduction.
Sofia Neron, Jona’s mother, detailed her frantic efforts to recover her daughter from the Villorente residence after learning of the abduction.
Barangay Councilor Giovannie Roma testified on efforts made to secure Jona’s release and indicated the opposition and threats from the Villorente family.
Dr. Emily Bacolod presented the medico-legal findings that supported the occurrence of rape, noting injuries compatible with forced sexual intercourse.

The defense relied primarily on the testimony of Teresita Villorente, who claimed she was in Manila on the day of the offense and professed ignorance of the events at Claire Tioco’s residence.
Appellant Charlie Villorente did not testify on his own behalf despite invitations to do so at trial.
A post-conviction affidavit of desistance submitted by the complainant was also introduced by the defense, alleging a misunderstanding between her and the accused; however, its relevance was questioned due to its timing.

The trial court found the victim’s (Jona Neron’s) testimony credible, noting the clarity, candor, and consistency under cross-examination.
The corroboration of testimonies by multiple prosecution witnesses, alongside the physical evidence, established a reliable chain of events demonstrating the abduction and subsequent rape.
The testimonial inconsistencies and the evasive nature of Teresita Villorente’s defense, including her unclear alibi, further undermined the defense’s position.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime of abduction with rape.
Whether the credibility of Jona Neron’s testimony—despite her lack of an immediate outcry or protest—was sufficient to establish the elements of the crime.
Whether the defense’s contention that the victim’s demeanor during the assault (absence of calls for help, even with bystanders nearby) undermined her account.
Whether the inconsistent and unclear testimony of Teresita Villorente regarding her whereabouts on the day of the offense could mitigate her criminal liability.
The admissibility and efficacy of the post-judgment affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant in affecting the outcome of the trial.