GR 142024; (July, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142024, July 20, 2001
P/CPL. GUILLERMO SARABIA, PNP, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
On June 23, 1991, at around 8:00 PM, complainants Josephine Picos-Mapalad and Anastacio Mapalad were at the Garcia Sports Complex in Tagbilaran City. Petitioner Guillermo Sarabia, a police officer carrying his service gun and flashlight, saw them. According to the prosecution, petitioner, with intimidation, pointed his gun at them and forced them to perform sexual acts against their will. He extorted P100.00, made Anastacio buy cigarettes, and, while he was gone, forced Josephine to masturbate him. He then threatened to kill them if they reported the incident. The following morning, the complainants went to Panglao for several days before reporting the matter to the police with the help of relatives, resulting in three informations for grave coercion being filed. Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming he merely warned the couple that the place was dangerous and directed them to go home, but they refused and shouted at him, so he left to avoid an altercation. The Municipal Trial Court convicted petitioner of one crime of grave coercion, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the lower courts’ decisions convicting petitioner of grave coercion, particularly regarding the credibility of the complainants’ testimonies.
RULING
The petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The Supreme Court held that the basic issue centered on the credibility of the complainants. It is settled that the assessment of the trial court on witness credibility is accorded the highest degree of respect and should not be disturbed absent any compelling reason. The Court found that petitioner’s attempts to highlight trivial inconsistencies in the complainants’ testimonies, such as differing accounts of how long they stayed in Panglao or the length of their relationship, were inconsequential and did not affect the core of their testimony regarding the coercion. The delay in reporting the incident was sufficiently explained by their need to recuperate and their fear due to petitioner’s threats. The Court found no reason to depart from the factual conclusions of the lower courts, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor. Therefore, petitioner’s conviction for grave coercion stands.