G.R. No. 176060; October 5, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ARNULFO FERNANDEZ, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Arnulfo Fernandez, was convicted of raping his 13-year-old first-degree cousin, AAA. The prosecution established that on the night of July 7, 1997, after a drinking session with AAA’s father, appellant went upstairs where AAA and her siblings were sleeping. He covered AAA’s mouth and raped her while she was asleep. Upon waking, AAA felt pain and could not overpower him. Her father later discovered her condition, and AAA immediately reported the rape. Medical examination revealed a fresh hymenal laceration. The barangay captain was informed, and appellant surrendered a week later.
At trial, appellant admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed a “sweetheart defense,” alleging AAA was his girlfriend and had consented, even initiating the act. He further claimed they had been sexually active since 1995 when AAA was 11, and described her as mentally slow and a “sex maniac.” The trial court rejected this defense as incredible, finding AAA’s testimony positive and straightforward. It convicted appellant of rape under Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core legal issue was the credibility of the appellant’s defense versus the prosecution’s evidence. The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial court, which are accorded great weight and respect, especially on witness credibility. Appellant’s claim of consensual sex was thoroughly discredited. Critically, AAA was asleep when the sexual act began, which constitutes rape under Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as carnal knowledge with a woman who is “otherwise unconscious” is statutory rape. Appellant’s own admission that he went upstairs to find AAA sleeping directly contradicted his assertion that she initiated the act.
Furthermore, his “sweetheart theory” and claim of a prior sexual relationship since AAA was 11 were deemed implausible and unsupported, especially against the medical evidence of a fresh laceration consistent with a first sexual experience. The Court also corrected the trial court’s error in considering their first-cousin relationship as an aggravating circumstance, as it is not among the relationships specified in Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. However, this deletion did not affect the penalty, as reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances under Article 63. Thus, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.