GR 116528; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116528-31 July 14, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Marieto Adora, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Marieto Adora was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City of four counts of rape and sentenced to four terms of reclusion perpetua. The victim was Cecilia Cotorno, who was born on August 16, 1976. After her mother’s death in 1979, she and her sister Cherry were entrusted to the care of the accused, who is the brother-in-law of Cecilia’s father, Ricardo Cotorno. Cecilia grew up believing the accused was her real father. The four rapes occurred on June 25, 1992 (evening), June 27, 1992 (afternoon), August 1, 1992 (afternoon), and September 24, 1992 (night), all at Barangay Vega, Rapu-Rapu, Albay. In each instance, the accused, armed with a bolo (“loknit”), sneaked into Cecilia’s room while she was asleep, covered her mouth, undressed her, and raped her under threats to behead her and her aunt Apolonia (the accused’s wife). Cecilia did not immediately report the rapes due to these threats. A complaint was lodged on December 30, 1992, after Cecilia was noticed to be pregnant.
ISSUE
The core legal issue, as framed by the court’s introductory statement, pertains to the significance of pregnancy in a rape prosecution. Specifically, whether it is essential to establish the exact date of fertilization in prosecutions for rape resulting in pregnancy, and whether pregnancy is a determinative issue in establishing the crime of rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that in prosecutions for rape resulting in pregnancy, it is not essential to establish the exact date of fertilization, as forensic experts agree such exact date is medically unascertainable. More fundamentally, pregnancy is a non-issue in a criminal prosecution for rape, the essential element of which is the absence of the victim’s consent to the sexual congress. The court found the testimony of the victim credible and consistent, and the defense of denial and alibi by the accused was weak and unsubstantiated. The trial court’s decision was upheld, including the awards of moral and exemplary damages.