G.R. No. 106977 July 17, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AQUILIO ACABO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Aquilio Acabo was convicted of rape by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution evidence established that on February 25, 1990, the 20-year-old complainant, Jeany Polinar, visited her sister’s house where Acabo, her brother-in-law, was alone. While she was emptying her bag, Acabo grabbed her, covered her mouth, boxed her, and dragged her to a room. Despite her attempts to escape by jumping out a window, he pulled her back, inflicted further blows, removed her clothing and his own, and consummated the sexual act. Afterward, he threatened her with a scythe. She immediately reported the incident to her mother and sister, Acabo’s wife, and underwent a medical examination the next day which revealed a fresh, bleeding laceration at the vaginal opening.
The defense presented a denial and alleged a consensual illicit relationship, claiming the sexual act on that date did not occur due to the complainant’s menstruation. He asserted the injuries resulted from her attempted escape and that he only inserted a finger, causing the laceration. His wife, Rosie Acabo, initially supported the complainant but later testified for the defense. An affidavit of desistance from the complainant’s mother was also presented.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape, specifically in finding that sexual intercourse occurred through force and intimidation and against the will of the complainant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the complainant’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent with human experience. Her immediate reporting of the crime and the corroborative medical findings of a fresh laceration strongly supported her account. The defense of a prior illicit relationship was rejected for being self-serving, uncorroborated by tangible evidence, and contradicted by the wife’s own initial supportive actions post-incident. The claim of menstruation was unsubstantiated and did not negate the commission of rape.
The Court emphasized that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. The elements of rape—carnal knowledge through force or intimidation—were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The affidavit of desistance from the complainant’s mother was immaterial, as pardon to extinguish criminal liability must come from the offended party herself, who was of legal age, and must be given before the institution of the criminal action. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.