PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO BARTOLOME y GARCIA, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2012.

FACTS:
Joselito Bartolome was charged with the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimony of the private complainant, AAA, a minor. AAA testified that on the night of the incident, the accused, who was her neighbor and the common-law partner of her aunt, entered her room while she was sleeping, covered her mouth, threatened her with a knife, and sexually assaulted her. The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming the accused was elsewhere at the time. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bartolome of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

NO, the accused’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Joselito Bartolome.

The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the conviction of the accused must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. The testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution and must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.

The Court found the testimony of AAA fraught with serious inconsistencies and improbabilities that eroded her credibility. Key discrepancies included: (1) her varying accounts of how the accused entered her room (whether the door was merely pushed open or forced open); (2) the implausibility of the alleged threat with a knife given the positioning described; (3) her claim of shouting for help which was not heard by other household members sleeping in adjacent rooms; and (4) her conduct immediately after the alleged incidentspecifically, returning to sleep and only reporting the rape days laterwhich was contrary to the natural reaction of a victim who had just been violently assaulted. The Court ruled that these inconsistencies pertained to material points that touched upon the very essence of the crime and cast doubt on the truthfulness of the accusation.

Furthermore, the medical findings (Medico-Legal Report) did not provide conclusive corroboration, as the healed lacerations were compatible with recent sexual intercourse but not necessarily indicative of force or lack of consent. Given the reasonable doubt created by the unreliable testimony of the complainant, the presumption of innocence must prevail. The Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and ordered the immediate release of the accused unless he was detained for another lawful cause.