G.R. No. 121626 June 26, 1998
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rolando Banguis y Notuil, Romel Francisco y Maputi, Renny Jumalon, Allan Jumalon, Gilbert Arañas and Carlos Enterone, accused. Rolando Banguis y Notuil, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 3, 1993, thirteen-year-old Chelly Caliso was fetching water at a public faucet in Iligan City when accused Rolando Banguis approached and introduced himself. After Rolando signaled, his companions—Romel Francisco, Renny Jumalon, Allan Jumalon, Gilbert Arañas, and Carlos Interone—emerged. Rolando left for a copra drier. Romel then drew a knife, pointed it at Chelly’s neck, and threatened to kill her if she did not go with him. She was brought to the copra drier about 100 meters away, meeting Jerry Alfante and Alfredo Flores en route. At the drier, Carlos took the knife. Carlos ordered Chelly to lie down on a bamboo bed, pushed her down when she refused, and pointed the knife at her neck. Rolando then undressed himself and Chelly, forcibly had carnal knowledge of her, and after satisfying his lust, punched her chest three times, rendering her unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, Chelly was told by Jerry Alfante and Alfredo Flores to dress and flee. She did so and managed to escape her pursuers, seeking refuge at her cousin Emma Cainila’s house, to whom she narrated the incident. On November 5, 1993, Chelly reported the rape to the police and was medically examined. The examination revealed two hymenal lacerations and other injuries consistent with sexual assault. The accused denied the charges, interposing alibis. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Rolando Banguis and Romel Francisco of rape and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Only Rolando Banguis appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Rolando Banguis of the crime of rape despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty due to accused-appellant’s minority. The Court found no merit in the appeal, holding that the alleged inconsistencies between Chelly Caliso’s affidavit and her court testimony—specifically regarding whether Romel Francisco or Carlos Interone initially brandished the knife—did not discredit her. The Court ruled that affidavits are generally subordinate to open court declarations, as they are often incomplete and not prepared by the affiant. Chelly adequately explained the discrepancy on the witness stand, clarifying that Romel pointed the knife at the faucet, while Carlos did so at the copra drier. The Court also found unpersuasive the argument that Emma Cainila’s failure to immediately report the incident undermined the case, as Emma explained Chelly was too afraid to go out, and the prosecution’s case rested firmly on Chelly’s credible and straightforward testimony. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was accorded great respect, as it observed Chelly’s natural and spontaneous demeanor, while finding the defense testimonies incredible and rehearsed. The prosecution established the rape, and no improper motive was shown for Chelly to falsely accuse the appellant, whom she did not know prior to the incident. However, since accused-appellant was seventeen years old at the time of the crime, as evidenced by his birth certificate, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority was applied. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law (reclusion perpetua to death for rape committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons) is reclusion temporal. With no other modifying circumstances, it was imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 9 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was thus AFFIRMED with modification.