Case Digest (G.R. No. 229677) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In People of the Philippines v. XXX (G.R. No. 229677, October 02, 2019), appellant XXX was charged with two counts of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. 7659 and R.A. 8353 for alleged acts committed on October 17, 2000 at Barangay ______, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. The information in Criminal Case No. C-6350 alleged that at around 9:00 a.m. XXX, motivated by lust and by force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will. Criminal Case No. C-6358 charged a second rape at around 2:00 p.m. of the same day under similar circumstances. The cases were raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Calapan City, where AAA, her mother BBB, sister CCC, and Dr. Angelita C. Legaspi testified for the prosecution, while XXX and neighbor DDD testified for the defense. The trial court, in a joint decision dated November 24, 2011, found XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both counts and imposed two reclusion perpetua sentences with ac Case Digest (G.R. No. 229677) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural History
- The People of the Philippines charged XXX with two counts of rape under Article 335 of the RPC as amended by R.A. 7659 & 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Calapan City, convicted XXX of two counts of rape and imposed reclusion perpetua plus damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification of damages. XXX elevated the case to the Supreme Court (SC).
- Alleged Facts and Trial Evidence
- Prosecution’s Version
- AAA, a woman renting a room from XXX, testified that on October 17, 2000, XXX forced himself upon her twice (around 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM) by holding, intoxicating, locking the door, and brandishing a firearm. She cried, but failed to escape despite open windows and never immediately disclosed to her mother. Medical exam showed healed hymenal lacerations.
- BBB (mother) and CCC (sister) corroborated delayed reporting, mother’s late rescue (October 18) and the trip to police stations (Victoria then Calapan). CCC testified AAA warned her not to believe any “sweetheart” claim by XXX.
- Defense’s Version
- XXX and AAA were sweethearts who consented to sexual acts twice; she moved in on October 13, 2000. He presented love notes, a 2×2 photo, a Jollibee napkin inscription, and an engagement ring plus cash.
- DDD, an impartial neighbor, testified she often saw them caressing, lying side by side watching TV with open door, hanging clothes, doing market runs arm-in-arm—consistent with consensual courtship.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming XXX’s conviction for two counts of rape when the evidence allegedly showed a consensual relationship and material inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)