G.R. No. 102056 -57 June 8, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR SARELLANA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Dominador Sarellana, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City of two counts of Rape committed against complainant Joy S. Ombing, then 14 years old. The criminal complaints alleged that on August 9, 1987, and September 11, 1987, in Davao City, the accused, by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will. The accused remained at large until his arrest on January 31, 1990, after which he pleaded not guilty, and the cases were tried jointly.
The prosecution evidence established that the complainant and her family knew the accused as a barriomate and an Alsa Masa member who patrolled the area armed with firearms. On August 9, 1987, while the complainant was biking on an isolated road to feed her family’s pigs, the accused waylaid her, poked a handgun at her neck, dragged her to a banana grove, and despite her shouts and resistance, forcibly removed her pants and underwear and had carnal knowledge with her, causing her pain and bleeding. He threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. On September 11, 1987, a similar incident occurred on the same road where the accused again accosted her, dragged her to a banana grove at gunpoint, and raped her, threatening to kill her and her entire family if she told anyone. The complainant only reported the rapes to her mother in October 1987 due to fear, leading to a medical examination and police report.
Dr. Jose G. Ladrido, Jr. medically examined the complainant on October 13, 1987, and found old hymenal lacerations and concluded she may have had sexual contact on the alleged dates. The defense presented the accused, who testified that he and the complainant were sweethearts since April 1986 but categorically denied having sexual intercourse with her on the dates in question and denied owning a handgun. Defense witness Severo Abear, a fellow Alsa Masa member, testified he saw the accused and complainant meeting frequently at a house near their camp from April to August 1987.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The Court held that the complainant’s testimony was credible, straightforward, and consistent, detailing the use of force, intimidation with a handgun, and the subsequent threats on her life. The medical findings corroborated her claim of sexual intercourse. The Court rejected the defense of a supposed sweetheart relationship as it was contradicted by the accused’s own testimony denying any sexual intercourse with the complainant on the relevant dates and was deemed a fabrication to evade liability. The Court also noted that the defense witness’s testimony was unreliable due to his close relationship with the accused and the inherent improbability of his claims. The accused’s flight after the charges were filed was considered indicative of guilt. Therefore, the accused-appellant’s guilt for two counts of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.