GR 112714; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 112714-15 February 7, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO SAGARAL, alias TONY, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Antonio Sagaral, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City for two counts of rape against his stepdaughter, Corazon Kiroquero, then 11-13 years old. The first incident occurred on June 3, 1989, when the appellant, after isolating Corazon, dragged her into a room, removed her clothing, and had carnal knowledge of her despite her resistance, causing her to lose consciousness. The second incident transpired on June 14, 1989, under similar circumstances of force and intimidation, after which the appellant hog-tied her. The victim reported the incidents to the barangay authorities. The defense consisted of denial and an allegation that the complaints were fabricated due to resentment over previous beatings.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant committed the crime of rape through force and intimidation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the young victim to be credible, natural, and consistent. It held that it is highly improbable for a girl of tender years, not exposed to the ways of the world, to fabricate a story of defloration, undergo a physical examination, and endure a public trial unless motivated by a sincere desire to seek justice for a wrong actually committed. The defense of denial and imputation of ill-motive was deemed weak and unsubstantiated, especially when weighed against the positive and categorical testimony of the victim, which was corroborated by physical evidence. The Court ruled that all elements of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code were established: carnal knowledge was accomplished through the employment of force and intimidation, as clearly demonstrated by the appellant’s acts of dragging, slapping, boxing, and threatening the victim. No reversible error was found in the trial court’s assessment of the evidence.