Ponente: Leonardo De Castro J G.R. No. 199268 FACTS:
The accused Aurelio Jastiva armed
with a knife, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with a 67 years old married woman. The accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime charged when he was arraigned. On the night of the crime, AAA (victim) was sleeping alone in her house because her husband that night went to her daughters house. When AAA was fast asleep, accused covered her mouth, threatened her with a knife and told her not to scream. After the accused succeed in raping the AAA, he went out of the front door which was opened by AAA. The victim was able to see the face of the accused when it went out of the door because of the moonlight illuminating in the face of the accused. The accused presented three witnesses which are his daughter, common-law wife and Ordas(A visitor in his house when the crime happened). The witnesses have said that Jastiva was in his own house on the night of the incident and it was impossible for the accused to have left the house without being noticed. The accused also questioned the ability of the victim to identify her rapist just by seeing its face illuminated by moonlight since it was dark and there is lack of lightning in the kamalig where the crime took place. RTCs Decision: The accused was GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT f the crime of rape after trial
and evaluation of evidence. CAs Decision: AFFIRMED in all respect rtcs decision except that Jastiva is further ordered to pay INTEREST on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum. ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence presented? RULING: Appeal is denied and conviction of Jastiva is affirmed Rape; elements. The elements of rape (under paragraph 1, subparagraph a of Article 266-A) are as follows: (1) that the offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that such act is accomplished by using force, (threat) or intimidation. Firstly, Jastiva was not able to show that the RTC and CA overlooked any fact or material of consequence that could have altered the outcome had they taken it into consideration, this court will not disturb on appeal the RTCs findings of facts, but must fully accept these. The three guiding principles in rape prosecutions: 1.) an accusation of rape is easy to make and difficult to prove, but is even more difficult to disprove. 2.) the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost care and caution 3.) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Secondly, as explained by the RTC,
The high court held that an
accused need not always be identified under a perfect or near perfect visibility.
RTC correctly held that the Court is
not disposed to doubt the evidenced
ability of the complainant to identify
her rapist especially because her familiarity of the latter could easily be strengthened by the factthat the accused is her neighbor living 100 meters away from the crime scene.