G.R. No. 125307-09 October 20, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROQUE CELIS y Avila and CARLOS CELIS y Avila, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On March 10, 1994, two informations were filed charging Roque A. Celis with two counts of rape, and a separate information charged Carlos A. Celis with one count of rape, all against Raquel Viernes in Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Both accused pleaded not guilty, and a joint trial ensued. The prosecution’s evidence established that on January 15, 1994, Raquel Viernes, arriving from Manila, boarded a jeep driven by Carlos Celis with Roque Celis as conductor. After reaching Tacurong and finding no transport to her destination, she accepted the accused-appellants’ offer to help her. They later invited her to sleep at their house in Esperanza. En route, Carlos Celis dragged her to a makeshift hut, threatened her, and had carnal knowledge of her. Later, at around 12:30 a.m. on January 16, Roque Celis, armed with a knife, brought her to a school tower and raped her. After being brought to the Celis house, Roque raped her again at around 4:00 a.m. on the same day at a school building. Raquel eventually escaped, reported the rapes to the police, and was medically examined. The medico-legal certificate noted old hymenal lacerations but no spermatozoa and no external physical injury. The accused-appellants denied the charges and presented a different version of events.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the accused-appellants, Roque Celis and Carlos Celis, are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape as charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting both accused-appellants. Carlos A. Celis was found guilty of one count of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Roque A. Celis was found guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced to two penalties of reclusion perpetua. Both were ordered to indemnify the victim Raquel Viernes in the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) for each count of rape. The Court upheld the credibility of the victim’s testimony, which was found to be clear, consistent, and convincing. It ruled that her failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance was justified by the threats and intimidation employed by the accused, and that her initial acceptance of their help did not constitute consent to the sexual acts. The medico-legal findings, while showing no fresh injuries, were consistent with rape given the victim’s account of force and the noted old hymenal lacerations. The defenses of denial and alibi were rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated.