GR 143790; (May, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143790 ; May 7, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCIANO BERTULFO y GELEG, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution alleged that on November 10, 1996, in Quezon City, accused-appellant Marciano Bertulfo raped his common-law spouse’s niece, 16-year-old Rhiza Oliverio. Rhiza testified that while she was sleeping in a room with Marciano’s two-year-old son, Marciano entered, threatened to kill her if she shouted, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge with her against her will. She reported the incident to her aunt, Viola Reyes, and subsequently filed a complaint at the Baesa Police Station. A medico-legal examination revealed findings compatible with recent loss of virginity, including hymenal lacerations.
The defense presented a different narrative. Marciano claimed he was out bowling until the early morning of November 11 and, upon returning, saw Rhiza drinking with others. He denied the rape allegation. The defense also presented an “Affidavit of Desistance” allegedly signed by Rhiza and Viola, which Rhiza explained she was forced to sign after threats from Marciano’s sister that they would be charged with kidnapping and theft.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Rhiza Oliverio, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. It held that in rape cases, the credibility of the complainant is paramount, and her testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court noted that Rhiza’s account of the forcible sexual assault, including the specific threat made by the appellant, was detailed and unwavering. The medico-legal findings, which confirmed recent loss of virginity, strongly corroborated her testimony. The Court dismissed the defense’s reliance on the affidavit of desistance, upholding the trial court’s finding that it was executed under duress and thus without probative value. The Court also rejected the appellant’s new argument on appeal regarding an alleged illegal arrest, ruling that any objection to the court’s jurisdiction over his person was waived when he entered his plea without raising it. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages were affirmed as correct under prevailing jurisprudence.