G.R. No. 117682 , August 18, 1997
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Silvino (Silverio) Salarza, Jr., Accused-Appellant.

DISSENTING OPINION: DAVIDE, JR., J.

FACTS

This is a dissenting opinion on the appeal from a conviction for rape. The complainant, Zareen Smith, testified that in the early morning of May 1, 1994, while she was half-asleep, intoxicated, and in a dark room at a cottage in Puerto Princesa, someone removed her underwear. Believing it was her boyfriend, Ricky de Jesus, she did not initially resist. The accused, Silvino Salarza, Jr., then quickly penetrated her. Upon realizing it was Salarza when he uttered, “Zareen, it’s not Ricky, it’s Jun, I love you,” she immediately pushed him away, ran to the bathroom hysterically, and confronted him. She promptly reported the incident to the police and underwent a medical examination.
The trial court found Zareen’s testimony to be “natural, simple, straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature,” and gave it full credence. It highlighted her immediate outcry and actions as proof of her lack of consent. Conversely, the court rejected the defense’s claim that Salarza could not achieve an erection despite Zareen’s alleged advances, deeming it “unnatural, abnormal and contrary to human nature and experience.” The court also noted that a defense witness, PO2 Rosauro Rodillo, testified that Salarza had admitted to having sex with Zareen.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether accused-appellant Silvino Salarza, Jr. had carnal knowledge of complainant Zareen Smith; and (2) whether he did so under circumstances constituting rape, specifically without her consent.

RULING

Justice Davide, dissenting, argues that the accused-appellant should be convicted of rape. The legal logic centers on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony and the establishment of carnal knowledge without consent. The trial court, which had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses, found Zareen Smith’s account credible and consistent with an immediate, non-consensual sexual violation. Her prompt reaction—pushing the accused away, hysterical crying, confrontation, and immediate reporting—objectively demonstrates her lack of consent and the force employed by the accused in exploiting her half-asleep, intoxicated state.
The dissent rejects the defense’s version as inherently incredible. The trial court’s assessment that a normal, young man would not fail to achieve an erection under the circumstances described by the defense is a factual finding entitled to great respect. More critically, the admission of sexual intercourse extracted from the defense’s own witness, PO2 Rodillo, corroborates the complainant’s core allegation of carnal knowledge. This admission, coupled with the proven absence of consent, satisfies the elements of rape. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Davide votes to affirm the conviction but modifies the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, as no qualifying circumstances warranting the supreme penalty were alleged or proven.