GR 128818; (June, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128818 June 18, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICIANO U. SAGAYSAY, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on the evening of October 8, 1995, in Dumanjug, Cebu, twelve-year-old Julie Polgo was on her way to a neighbor’s house when accused-appellant Feliciano Sagaysay suddenly appeared. He grabbed her, dragged her to a secluded area, and, while armed with a knife, forcibly undressed her. He gagged her with a handkerchief, kissed her, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge against her will, causing her pain. After the act, he took her to his house where she spent the night. The following morning, her family found her there, and she immediately reported the rape. A medical examination revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Sagaysay claimed he was elsewhere, fishing and drinking, on the night in question. He alleged that he merely found Julie at a chapel, and she followed him home out of fear of being whipped. He allowed her to sleep in his house. The next morning, her sister arrived, angrily pulled Julie from the house, and even squeezed her vagina in front of witnesses, which the defense implied was the cause of the injuries.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Julie Polgo, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her account of being forcibly dragged, gagged, and sexually assaulted by the armed appellant was deemed sufficient to establish the elements of rape through force and intimidation. The medical findings corroborated her claim of a recent sexual encounter and physical trauma. The Court clarified that while the information alleged the victim was below twelve, her correct age was twelve years and eight months at the time of the rape. This did not negate the conviction, as the crime was sufficiently proven under the first circumstance of rape—by means of force and intimidation—and not solely under the statutory provision for victims under twelve. The defense of denial and the implausible alternative story were insufficient to overcome the positive identification and credible narrative of the victim. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld. However, the award of exemplary damages was deleted, as no aggravating circumstance was proven to warrant it.