PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROD FAMUDULAN y FEDELIN
G.R. No. 2121944 July 6, 2015
Facts:
Appellant, a 42-year old man, was accused and charged with the crime of statutory rape against AAA. AAA, a 6-year old girl, testified that the appellant was her aunt’s neighbor.
The appellant cornered and ordered her to fellate him and he inserted his finger in her vaginal orifice and thereafter his organ. Thereafter, he threatened to kill her if she would tell anybody. She positively identified accused as her assailant in open court. The prosecution presented AAA and Dr. Adelaido Malaluan as its witnesses. Dr. Malaluan examined AAA and affirmed that he executed a Medico-Legal Report and that the injuries sustained by AAA may have been caused by a blunt object such as a hard penis.
Appellant in his defense, claimed that on January 1, 2010, noontime, he was not in the place where the crime happened for he was on a trip going to Batangas. The RTC gave credence to AAA’s testimony since she was a child of tender years. Moreover, the testimony was delivered in a spontaneous and straightforward manner. On the other hand, appellant’s defense of denial and alibi was left unsubstantiated by evidence. The RTC noted that Bansud is not too far from Banus. In light of the credible testimony and positive identification of the appellant, by AAA and appellant’s unsubstantiated defense, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape. On appeal, the CA affirmed RTC’s decision with modification for the award of damages. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. 2121944 July 6, 2015
Facts:
Appellant, a 42-year old man, was accused and charged with the crime of statutory rape against AAA. AAA, a 6-year old girl, testified that the appellant was her aunt’s neighbor.
The appellant cornered and ordered her to fellate him and he inserted his finger in her vaginal orifice and thereafter his organ. Thereafter, he threatened to kill her if she would tell anybody. She positively identified accused as her assailant in open court. The prosecution presented AAA and Dr. Adelaido Malaluan as its witnesses. Dr. Malaluan examined AAA and affirmed that he executed a Medico-Legal Report and that the injuries sustained by AAA may have been caused by a blunt object such as a hard penis.
Appellant in his defense, claimed that on January 1, 2010, noontime, he was not in the place where the crime happened for he was on a trip going to Batangas. The RTC gave credence to AAA’s testimony since she was a child of tender years. Moreover, the testimony was delivered in a spontaneous and straightforward manner. On the other hand, appellant’s defense of denial and alibi was left unsubstantiated by evidence. The RTC noted that Bansud is not too far from Banus. In light of the credible testimony and positive identification of the appellant, by AAA and appellant’s unsubstantiated defense, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape. On appeal, the CA affirmed RTC’s decision with modification for the award of damages. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court stated that it has been held that when a woman or a girl-child says
that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Appellant’s defense
of denial and alibi are inherently weak and self-serving, especially if uncorroborated. Denial
cannot prevail over complainant’s direct, positive and categorical assertion. As between a
positive and categorical testimony which has the ring of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on
the other, the former is generally held to prevail. Furthermore, the court is constrained to modify
the penalty imposed by the RTC and the CA. Article 266-B provides that in cases of qualified
statutory rape the penalty imposed shall be death.
However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 9346 instead prescribes that the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole be imposed in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or the sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 9346 instead prescribes that the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole be imposed in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or the sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment