Title
People vs. Espera y Cuyacot
Case
G.R. No. 202868
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2013
Accused raped victim twice—sexual assault and intercourse—after threatening her with a gun. Medical evidence and victim’s testimony confirmed guilt; alibi rejected.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202868)

Charges and Informations

Two Informations were filed: Criminal Case No. 99-511 charging rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, par. 2 (insertion of penis into the mouth) committed with force, threat and intimidation using a deadly weapon (short firearm); and Criminal Case No. 99-512 charging rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A, par. 1 (through force, threat or intimidation) also committed with a deadly weapon. The accused pleaded not guilty.

Prosecution’s Narrative and Core Facts

The prosecution established that on January 26, 1999 Ana and her co-worker Susie shared a tricycle ride. Both recognized the driver; Ana saw his face and noted he wore a red polo shirt and maong pants. The driver allegedly drove past Ana’s house, stopped at a quarry claiming brake and fuel problems, and left Ana to walk home. While walking, Ana was followed by the same man, who then covered his face with a red shirt, was naked from the waist up, and held a gun. He chased, caught, covered her mouth, pointed the gun at her head, threatened to kill her, punched her, dragged her to a secluded place, forcibly undressed her, inserted his penis into her mouth (sexual assault), digitally penetrated her, and thereafter forcibly had sexual intercourse, causing pain, bleeding and other injuries. He threatened her afterwards, blindfolded her, and left; Ana later reported the incident to her mother and to Susie, and underwent a medical examination.

Medical Findings and Physical Evidence

The medical examination (January 28, 1999) documented multiple contusions, lacerations and abrasions: facial contusions and laceration from jaw to lower lip including a bite mark on the upper lip; contusions on the forehead and chest; fingernail marks on shoulder, wrist and back; lacerated labia, ruptured hymen, and presence of dead spermatozoa in the vagina. These findings corroborated the victim’s account of physical violence and sexual acts.

Identification and Post-Offense Events

Ana and Susie identified the tricycle driver at the time of boarding and later identified the accused at the police station despite changes in his appearance (haircut and shaved beard). Ana also recognized the assailant by his voice. The accused left Ubay soon after the incident and was apprehended in Pampanga in August 2003. The prosecution relied on both visual and auditory identification, plus the sequence of events that placed the accused in a vulnerable position to commit the crimes.

Accused’s Defense and Alibi

The accused admitted being a tricycle driver but claimed an alibi: he alleged being at home in Fatima, Ubay (1.12 kilometers from the crime scene) asleep by 6:00 p.m. after drinking in the market and waking the next morning around 8:00 a.m., denying involvement. He also explained his absence from the locale by stating the tricycle was used for the Ubay town fiesta and that he later left for Manila to work as a security guard, where he was eventually arrested.

Trial Court Findings and Sentencing

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the victim’s testimony credible, supported by medical evidence and circumstances such as the accused’s flight. The RTC convicted the accused of both rape by sexual assault (Crim. Case No. 99-511) and rape by sexual intercourse (Crim. Case No. 99-512), each with the use of a deadly weapon. Sentences imposed: for rape by sexual assault, an indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum; for rape by sexual intercourse, reclusion perpetua. The RTC awarded P50,000 civil indemnity and P50,000 moral damages in each case (Omnibus Decision dated September 21, 2007).

Court of Appeals Review and Modifications

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s convictions but modified the award of damages. It found the identification credible (illumination at boarding, flashlight use, recognition of clothing and voice) and held the victim’s behavior consistent with duress and compliance under threat. The CA awarded for Criminal Case No. 99-511: P30,000 civil indemnity, P30,000 moral damages, P30,000 exemplary damages; and for Criminal Case No. 99-512: P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages and P30,000 exemplary damages (Decision dated July 28, 2011).

Supreme Court Standards on Presumption of Innocence and Proof of Identity

Applying the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Section 14(2)), the Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt both the elements of the crime and the identity of the accused as the perpetrator. The Court emphasized the twofold review duty: (1) evaluate identification of accused as perpetrator considering witness credibility and compliance with legal standards, and (2) ascertain that all elements of the charged offenses were proven.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Identity and Credibility

The Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts: both Ana and Susie positively identified the accused as the tricycle driver who later assaulted Ana. The Court stressed corroborative factors: illumination at the time of boarding, Susie’s flashlight enabling recognition of clothing, Ana’s recognition by voice at various points (during negotiation for ride, at the quarry when told the tricycle had no fuel, during the assault, and later at the police station). The Court found Ana’s testimony clear, categorical, consistent and credible; it rejected the accused’s contentions regarding failure to shout or resist as eroding credibility, explaining that the record established physical restraint, threats with a gun, and repeated violence that reasonably prevented effective resistance or call for help.

Legal Characterization of Offenses and Sentencing Rationale

The Court distinguished the two modes of rape under Article 266-A: rape by sexual intercourse (penile-vaginal carnal knowledge; offender male; higher penalty) and rape by sexual assault (insertion of penis into mouth or anal orifice, or insertion of instrument/object; offender may be male or female). It agreed with lower courts that both modes were committed: first sexual assault by oral penetration while pointing a gun and punching the vi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.