G.R. No. 247002 . April 12, 2023.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUN VILLEGAS @ “PEDRITO” BASIGNA, UDEBS GONZALES, AND KENNETH MATIAS Y ANGLO, ACCUSED, KENNETH MATIAS Y ANGLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Kenneth Matias y Anglo, together with Jun Villegas and Udebs Gonzales, was charged with three counts of Rape, two of which (Crim. Case Nos. Q-08-150788 and Q-08-150789) were jointly tried. The Informations alleged that on July 23, 2007, in Quezon City, the accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, by means of force, threats, and intimidation, had carnal knowledge with AAA, a 15-year-old minor, against her will. In Crim. Case No. Q-08-150788, Villegas was alleged to have raped AAA while accused-appellant acted as a lookout. In Crim. Case No. Q-08-150789, accused-appellant was alleged to have raped AAA while Gonzales held her legs and Villegas acted as lookout. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty; his co-accused remained at large. The prosecution’s evidence showed that AAA was raped three times in succession by the three accused. A medical examination revealed a deep healed hymenal laceration and the presence of spermatozoa. Accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming he was elsewhere buying vegetables with his aunt at the time and that he was later tortured and forced to confess. He also claimed AAA failed to identify him in a police line-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of one count of Rape (in Crim. Case No. Q-08-150789) as a principal by direct participation and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals modified the RTC Decision, finding accused-appellant guilty of two counts of Rape (in both Crim. Case Nos. Q-08-150788 and Q-08-150789) based on conspiracy, and affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, without eligibility for parole, and increased the exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding accused-appellant’s conviction for two counts of Rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction and acquitted accused-appellant. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to the unreliable and doubtful identification of accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators. The Court emphasized that the out-of-court identification procedure was defective, as AAA was not asked to point out her assailants from a line-up but was instead presented with accused-appellant alone in a cell, which was suggestive and violative of his right to due process. While an in-court identification can cure a defective out-of-court identification, the Court found AAA’s in-court identification to be insufficient and unconvincing. Her testimony contained inconsistencies and lacked the requisite clarity and certainty, as she did not explicitly and categorically identify accused-appellant in open court as the person who raped her. The Court also noted that AAA’s testimony regarding how she learned the names of her assailants was inconsistent. Given the constitutional presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court ruled that the prosecution’s evidence fell short of the moral certainty needed for conviction. The Court also found that the existence of conspiracy was not sufficiently established. Accordingly, accused-appellant was acquitted on reasonable doubt and ordered immediately released unless held for another lawful cause.