GR 146423; (November, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146423 ; November 12, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Teodoro Divina y Duro, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s version established that on the night of January 11, 2000, Rosalie Divina was alone in her house. Accused-appellant Teodoro Divina, her husband’s cousin, entered her bedroom appearing drunk and under the influence of drugs, armed with a fan knife. He kissed her neck, pointed the knife at her to prevent her from shouting, undressed her despite her slapping him, and threatened to kill her. He ordered her to lie down, inserted two fingers into her vagina, and then his penis, causing her pain. He stopped and left after she begged him and said her husband might see them. She reported the incident to the police the next day. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay damages.
The defense presented a contrary version. Accused-appellant claimed that Rosalie Divina was his mistress since September 1999. On the night of January 11, 2000, he confronted her in front of her house after learning she had told his wife about their affair. Defense witness Crystalline Arcilla corroborated this, testifying she often saw them together as lovers, accompanied them on dates, and witnessed the confrontation. She also stated Rosalie was not alone that night.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Regional Trial Court and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Teodoro Divina y Duro based on reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution failed to establish his guilt with moral certainty. Key reasons included: the prosecution’s failure to refute the defense’s claim of a love affair between accused-appellant and the complainant; the corroborative testimony of a disinterested defense witness regarding the affair and the confrontation; the husband’s initial reaction of suspecting an affair instead of outrage, which was contrary to ordinary human experience; and the existence of strong indications that the rape charge could be false. The Court held that where there is reasonable doubt as to guilt, the accused must be acquitted, as the constitutional presumption of innocence can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.