G.R. No. 177138 January 26, 2010
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Joel Guillermo, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Joel Guillermo was charged with three counts of rape against AAA and one count of rape against BBB before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan. AAA testified that on three separate occasions in 1998, when she was 13 years old and living in her grandparents’ house, appellant, her first cousin, woke her up at night while wielding a knife, removed her clothes, and forced sexual intercourse upon her, threatening to kill her and her family if she reported it. Her pregnancy was later noticed by her teacher, Crisantina Raguindin, to whom she revealed the rapes, leading to the filing of a complaint. Dr. Ingrid Irene Ganciña confirmed AAA’s pregnancy and cervical lacerations. BBB testified that on September 28, 1998, when she was 12 years old and also living in her grandparents’ house, appellant, while holding a knife, sexually abused her after she woke up to find him licking her genitals, also threatening her life. Dr. Ganciña found healed cervical lacerations on BBB. The defense presented a “sweetheart theory,” claiming AAA consented to sexual relations, and presented an affidavit of desistance from AAA, which she later recanted, explaining she executed it because appellant promised support and land but reneged. For BBB’s case, appellant denied the accusation, suggesting a motive from a trivial quarrel over a guava fruit, and presented an alibi through his mother, Virginia Guillermo, who claimed he was in Manila at the time. The RTC convicted appellant of all counts, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages, deleting exemplary damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant Joel Guillermo’s conviction for three counts of rape against AAA and one count of rape against BBB.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. It held that appellant’s guilt for simple rape through force or intimidation was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no merit in appellant’s defenses. The “sweetheart theory” was unsupported by substantial evidence and constituted an admission of carnal knowledge. The affidavit of desistance was properly disregarded as recanted testimony, often secured through monetary considerations and dangerous to rely upon. Denial and alibi were inherently weak defenses. The testimonies of AAA and BBB were credible, straightforward, and corroborated by medical findings. The Court modified the award of damages, ruling that while the minority of the victims and their relationship to appellant could not be considered aggravating circumstances for lack of proper allegation and proof, the use of a deadly weapon (a knife), though not alleged in the Informations, was sufficiently proven during trial and justified the award of exemplary damages as it manifested greater perversity. Appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and ordered to pay each victim, for every count, ₱50,000 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000 as moral damages, and ₱30,000 as exemplary damages.