G.R. No. 176740 ; June 22, 2011
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Carlo Dumadag y Romio, Appellant.

FACTS

On June 14, 1999, an Information was filed accusing Carlo Dumadag y Romio of the crime of rape, defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The charge alleged that on or about December 25, 1998, in the Municipality of “CCC”, province of “DDD”, the accused, armed with a knife and by use of force or intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the offended party “AAA”, a woman below eighteen (18) years of age, against her will and consent. During arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s evidence established that in the early morning of December 25, 1998, “AAA” (16 years old at the time of testimony) was walking home after midnight mass. Appellant approached her from behind, poked a Batangas knife at her, and threatened to stab her if she shouted. He pulled her towards a house, forced her to remove her pants and panty, and then pushed her onto a bamboo bed. While pointing the knife at her abdomen, he ordered her to hold his penis against her vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge. Appellant continued to hold the knife until he allowed her to leave at 6:00 a.m., after threatening to kill her if she reported the incident. “AAA” initially did not disclose the incident out of fear, but her uncle later learned of it from appellant himself, leading to a police report. A medical examination confirmed a laceration on “AAA’s” hymen.
The defense did not deny sexual intercourse but claimed it was voluntary and consensual, asserting that appellant and “AAA” were lovers. Appellant presented witnesses (Boyet Ursulum and Nieves Irish Oandasan) to corroborate this “sweetheart” defense.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, giving credence to “AAA’s” candid and straightforward testimony and rejecting the sweetheart defense. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay “AAA” ₱100,000.00 as moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the damages, reducing moral damages to ₱50,000.00 while maintaining the ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant of rape; specifically, whether the sexual intercourse was accomplished through force and intimidation or was voluntary and consensual.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION as to the award of damages.
The Court held that the appeal was bereft of merit. It reiterated the well-entrenched doctrine that the trial court’s factual findings, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are conclusive and binding, save for exceptional circumstances such as arbitrariness or a misunderstanding of facts of weight and substance. No such exceptions were present.
The Court found the testimony of “AAA” credible, straightforward, and consistent. It rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the improbability of the incident (e.g., that no one saw them during the 200-meter walk, or that she did not shout despite being with his family), as these pertained to the assessment of credibility, which was properly evaluated by the lower courts. The defense of a sweetheart relationship was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the victim. The medical certificate corroborated the fact of sexual intercourse and injury.
The Court modified the award of damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Appellant was ordered to pay “AAA” the following: (1) ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) ₱50,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, the latter awarded due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon (knife). The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.