Title
People vs. Soan y Belarmino
Case
G.R. No. 112087
Decision Date
Apr 21, 1995
A 10-year-old girl was raped by the accused through threats; medical evidence and credible testimony led to his conviction for statutory rape.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 112087)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

On February 10, 1992, Ma. Esther U. Toquilar executed a complaint against Alexander Soan accusing him of rape. Following a preliminary investigation which yielded probable cause, Soan was charged with rape in an Information dated March 9, 1992. The indictment states that on December 14, 1991, Soan, utilizing threats and intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse with Ma. Esther against her will.

Trial and Testimonies

At his arraignment on June 8, 1992, Soan pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Ma. Esther as the sole eyewitness, supported by testimonies from her mother, Emily Urbe Toquilar, and their neighbor, Lita Balawang Cronico, as well as a medical examination conducted by Dr. Jose M. Lopez. The key events described by Ma. Esther included being lured into the Alcantara family's comfort room, where Soan threatened her, forcibly removed her clothing, and engaged in sexual intercourse.

Appellant’s Defense

Soan provided an alibi, claiming he was at work during the alleged dates. Witnesses for the defense included his brother-in-law and a co-worker, who corroborated his account of working from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He described his activities on the dates as consistent with a work schedule, asserting his innocent whereabouts and denying the allegations.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found Soan guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to pay the victim ₱40,000 in civil indemnity. This decision was grounded predominantly on the credibility of the victim's testimony and the corroborating evidence provided during the trial.

Appellant’s Arguments on Appeal

On appeal, Soan contested the trial court's judgment based on various claims: the conduct of the complainant before, during, and after the alleged incident; the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution; the lack of proof of penetration; and the alleged ulterior motives of prosecution witnesses. Specifically, he argued that Ma. Esther’s behavior was unnatural for a child if an assault had occurred, and he emphasized discrepancies in her testimonies.

Analysis of Arguments

The appellate court found these arguments to lack merit. It ruled that the reactions of child victims post-assault cannot be measured by the norms applicable to adults. The court reinforced the principle that different individuals react differently to trauma, and a child's silence or passive behavior can often be a product of fear and psychological impact.

Credibility of Witnesses

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding of credibility in the prosecution's witnesses. The discrepancies pointed out by the appellant were deemed immaterial and not sufficient to undermine the overall testimony which established the compelling case against him. The court noted that, per established law, even partial penetration

...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.