G.R. Nos. 105956-57 February 23, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Donato Lagrosa, Jr., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Donato Lagrosa, Jr., a Grade V teacher and adviser at Balading Elementary School in Cuyo, Palawan, was charged with two counts of rape against his 11-year-old pupil, Angelyn dela Cruz. The first incident allegedly occurred on November 28, 1990, at the accused’s residence, where he was accused of forcibly having carnal knowledge with Angelyn. The second incident allegedly occurred on January 25, 1991, at the school’s health corner. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 9345 and 9346. During trial, Angelyn testified that on November 28, 1990, the accused sent her to his house to fetch a “radio-phono,” followed her inside, dragged her to his bedroom, and raped her. She testified to a second rape on January 25, 1991, in the school health corner. The prosecution also presented evidence that the accused showed unusual fondness towards Angelyn, giving her money and examination “codigos” (answers). The incidents were reported on April 1, 1991, after Angelyn confided in her mother following inquiries by the head teacher, Mrs. Ofelia Fernandez, about the accused’s special attention to Angelyn. Medical examination confirmed Angelyn had previous sexual intercourse. The defense presented alibi and denial, claiming the cases were instigated due to a grudge. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lagrosa in Criminal Case No. 9345 (November 28 incident) but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 9346 (January 25 incident) on grounds of reasonable doubt. Lagrosa appealed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in not acquitting the accused despite the complainant’s allegedly doubtful account of the rape of November 28, 1990.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The complainant’s testimony was found credible, straightforward, and consistent. The Court ruled that in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the credible testimony of the victim. The delay in reporting the crime was sufficiently explained by the accused’s threats and his moral ascendancy as a teacher. The complainant’s conduct of returning to school after the incident did not negate rape, as people react differently to traumatic experiences. The acquittal in the second case did not undermine the credibility of the complainant’s testimony for the first case, as each case must be judged on its own merits. The Court found the crime to be statutory rape, as the complainant was under 12 years old, making her consent immaterial. The accused, as a teacher, gravely abused his position of trust and moral authority. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of moral damages were affirmed.