Title
People vs. Roman y Bernaldez
Case
G.R. No. 130947
Decision Date
Sep 14, 1999
An 18-year-old was raped at a pumpwell by a family acquaintance who threatened her life. Medical evidence and credible testimony led to his conviction, despite claims of a consensual relationship.
rape
consensual relationship
credibility
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-63630)

Factual Background

On June 26, 1991, at about 3:00 p.m., the complainant asked permission from her mother to bathe at a public pumpwell because there was no water in the house. While she was filling the basin with water, the accused-appellant arrived, placed his hand on her shoulder, and began kissing her while professing his love. The complainant resisted his advances, but the accused-appellant dragged her about fifty meters away to a grassy area. The complainant started to cry and shout. When she did so, the accused-appellant poked a short handgun at her, which frightened her and deterred her from making further noise.

The accused-appellant then kissed her again, removed her blouse, bra, shorts, and underwear, spread her towel on the ground, and lay her on top of it while he continued caressing her. He inserted his penis into her private organ, causing excruciating pain. After ejaculating, he kept the handgun pointed at her the whole time while holding her with his other arm.

The accused-appellant proceeded to have sexual intercourse with the complainant for a second time about twenty-five minutes later, and a third time after another interval of about twenty-five minutes. He then instructed her to dress up and warned her not to tell anyone, threatening to kill her and her family if she did.

After the incident, the complainant returned home with the accused-appellant at around 5:00 p.m. Upon reaching the house, the complainant hastily went to her room and cried. Her mother, Virginia, noticed her reddish face and observed her crying. When asked what happened, the complainant did not initially disclose the incident. She told her mother about it only around 9:00 p.m., after she believed the accused-appellant had left, while the accused-appellant, unknown to her, had stayed on and even slept in the house that night.

The complainant’s family did not confront the accused-appellant because he carried a gun. The complainant’s brother, Carlito, who slept beside the accused-appellant, observed that the accused-appellant had a short handgun with him and that he appeared restless throughout the night, repeatedly looking at the wall clock.

Medical Examination and Subsequent Reporting

The complainant was engaged to be married to Amado Nillo. She could not sleep because she felt deeply humiliated and feared that her fiancé might cancel their wedding if he learned she had been sexually abused. Still, the complainant and her mother reported the incident to the police the following day, and she submitted to a medical examination conducted by Dr. Luis Taburnal. The medical findings included: (1) a hematoma on the middle portion of the upper lip about three by two centimeters in size; (2) fresh hymenal lacerations at the three o’clock and nine o’clock positions; (3) fresh mucocutaneous abrasions on the labia minora, left and right sides; and (4) no other physical injuries.

About a month after the incident, the complainant married Amado Nillo. On the same day that she reported the crime to the police, the accused-appellant left for Manila. A formal complaint was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan on June 27, 1991, and a warrant of arrest issued on June 28, 1991, but the accused-appellant could no longer be found. He was arrested only later, in 1994, by virtue of an alias warrant of arrest after his return to Balatan.

Filing of the Information and Accused’s Plea

On September 14, 1995, the prosecution filed an information in the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 37, charging the accused-appellant with rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The information alleged that, on or about June 26, 1991, within the court’s jurisdiction, the accused-appellant, by means of intimidation, force and violence and the use of a firearm (handgun), had carnal knowledge with the complainant against her will.

At arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. He did not deny that he had carnal knowledge of the complainant, but asserted that all three sexual encounters were consensual. He further claimed that he and the complainant were “sweethearts,” and that they had sexual relations even before June 26, 1991. He presented a handkerchief allegedly given to him by the complainant, embroidered with the initials MS, a heart, and the letter R, as proof of their relationship.

Defense Evidence: Consensual Sex and “Sweetheart” Narrative

The accused-appellant’s account was that the complainant requested his accompaniment to the pumpwell and that, after she took her bath, he asked if he could have sex with her, which she allegedly consented to. He claimed the sexual congress was repeated two more times on the same afternoon. He asserted that at about 5:00 p.m., they proceeded to the complainant’s house, where she prepared snacks and he chatted with her brother Carlito. He claimed that afterwards they spent time at a nearby highway, after which he returned ahead of Carlito. He stated that when he arrived, he was met by the complainant who said rumors had started about their sexual encounter at the pumpwell and that she was worried those rumors might jeopardize her impending marriage. He said he was surprised because the complainant was already engaged to someone else. The accused-appellant stated that the next day he left for Manila, claiming the trip had been scheduled months beforehand.

To corroborate the sweetheart story, the accused-appellant presented Romeo Roman, a cousin who testified that at around 4:00 p.m. on June 26, 1991, he accidentally saw the accused-appellant and the complainant in a secluded grassy area where Milan allegedly had her legs wrapped around the accused’s legs and embraced him as they made love. Romeo said he did not tell anyone because one party involved was his cousin and at that time was already married.

The accused-appellant also relied on Charlie Talagtag, another cousin who testified that he and the accused-appellant had an agreement to go to Manila to fix someone’s car, and that Charlie went to the complainant’s house to verify the schedule. Charlie maintained he knew that the accused-appellant had been living with the complainant’s family earlier, allegedly because he often saw him in the complainant’s house.

Finally, the accused-appellant presented his wife, Evangeline Pacer-Roman, who testified that her husband admitted having an affair with the complainant, that they were living together, and that the complainant admitted having a good relationship with him. Evangeline further testified that, out of hurt, she filed a complaint with the barangay captain and was supposed to have a confrontation on June 28, 1991, but the complainant had already filed a rape complaint by then.

Trial Court Ruling

In its decision dated March 18, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 37 found the accused-appellant guilty of rape committed against the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law, and ordered him to indemnify the complainant P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay costs. The judgment also stated that the accused-appellant would be credited with the full period of preventive imprisonment, subject to written compliance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issues on Appeal and Arguments

On appeal, the accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He insisted that the three acts of sexual congress were consensual. He also argued that it would have been improbable for anyone not to have heard the complainant’s cries for help because the pumpwell was near a footpath and there were houses nearby.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Evidence

The Court rejected the accused-appellant’s contentions and sustained the complainant’s testimony. It found the sweetheart theory “much too inane” to merit credence. The Court held that the handkerchief presented as proof of relationship had no probative value because anyone could easily obtain it and have it embroidered with the corresponding initials. It further noted the complainant’s age and social situation. She was an eighteen-year-old college student engaged to be married to Amado Nillo, and the evidence did not indicate that she was of ill repute or of loose morals such that she would readily consent to intimate relations with a married man related by affinity to her maternal uncle.

The Court reasoned that if the complainant and the accused-appellant were indeed sweethearts, she would not have undergone the humiliating consequences of a public trial and the embarrassment of having her private parts examined and of describing three sexual assaults before strangers, with the risk that her fiancé would reject her. The Court emphasized that the complainant reported the incident to the authorities the very next day and submitted to medical examination despite the painful possibility that her fiancé might break their engagement. It treated the complainant’s continued pursuit of the case for three years as lending more credibility to her claim that she was violated, concluding that no decent woman would fabricate such a story that could sully her reputation and bring shame to her family unless motivated by a strong desire to seek justice.

The Court likewise discredited Romeo’s testimony that the sexual acts were consensual. It noted internal inconsistency. Romeo stated that he saw the accused-appellant and the complainant making love in an open field but claimed he did not tell anyone. Yet he contradicted himself when he said that the accused-appellant’s wife approached him to testify for the defense. The Court asked how the accused-appellant’s wife could know what Romeo witnessed if Romeo truly disclosed nothing to anyone.

The Court also found the defense explanation about departure for Manila to be unconvincin

...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.

About Privacy Terms