GR 97917; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97917 June 22, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pablo Dacquel, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On the night of October 6, 1988, in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, the accused, Pablo Dacquel, approached the victim, Ofelia Caser. By pointing a knife to her throat, he forced her to board a jeep bound for Bayombong. Upon reaching a waiting shed, they alighted. The accused forced her to lie on a bench, still pointing the knife at her throat, raised her skirt, pulled down her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain and wanted to shout but was prevented by the knife. She noticed blood on her dress afterwards. The following morning, she reported the incident to her sister and then to the police. A medical examination on October 8, 1988, by Dr. Jocelyn A. Toria revealed fresh lacerations on her hymen and perineum, consistent with the incident. The accused pleaded not guilty but admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant, claiming it was voluntary and by mutual consent as part of a plan to elope to Manila. He denied using a knife or force.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused had carnal knowledge of Ofelia Caser through force and intimidation.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting him based on the weakness of his defense and not on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.
RULING
The trial court’s decision is affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
1. The trial court found the complainant’s testimony on the use of force and intimidation to be “straightforward and unequivocal.” The force required in rape need not be overpowering; it is sufficient if it consummates the offender’s purpose. The court believed that force and/or intimidation was employed, noting the complainant’s firm allegation of abuse despite her observed low intelligence.
2. The trial court correctly based its conviction on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. The accused’s defense of a consensual relationship and planned elopement was disbelieved by the trial court as “unconvincing,” “highly incredible,” and “inherently unworthy of belief.” This was refuted by the medical finding of fresh lacerations with no old traces, contradicting the claim of prior sexual intercourse. The evaluation of witness credibility is primarily within the province of the trial court, which deserves utmost respect.