People v. Mole
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The complainant, Emerita Reyes, and her husband consulted appellant Romeo Mole, an albularyo, for itchiness. Mole diagnosed them as victims of witchcraft and charged them for treatment. During the treatment, Mole gave Wilfredo Reyes gin, causing him to become dizzy and pass out. Mole then brought Wilfredo to the bedroom. Later that night, Mole returned to the Reyeses' house, claiming their youngest son was in danger and demanding more money. After receiving the money, Mole sprinkled a pungent liquid on Emerita, Wilfredo, and their children, and then on Emerita, mumbling as if in prayer, causing her to feel weak and dizzy. Mole then dragged Emerita to the kitchen, removed her underwear, and lay on top of her, after which she lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Mole had left, and Emerita felt pain all over her body, including her vagina, leading her to conclude she was raped. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 143, found appellant Romeo Mole y Santos guilty of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim ₱50,000.00. The accusatory portion of the Information was initially for rape and later amended to include "while dizzy or otherwise unconscious." The Petition: Appellant Romeo Mole y Santos appealed the decision of the RTC, assigning errors concerning the trial court's decision based on confusion or supposition and failure to resolve doubt in favor of the accused.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the private complainant cast doubt on the commission of the crime of rape. Whether the alleged extrajudicial admission of the appellant is admissible in evidence. Whether the appellant can be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The appellant, Romeo Mole y Santos, was convicted of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay the costs of suit. The conviction for rape was reversed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for rape: The Court found that the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's testimony was found to be vacillating and inconsistent, particularly regarding the fact of penetration and her state of consciousness during the alleged act. While she initially stated she lost consciousness and only knew she was raped after regaining consciousness due to pain, she later testified that she felt penetration and that her organ was wet. These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the veracity of her claim of rape. Furthermore, the medical examination conducted by Dr. Aurea Villena found multiple lacerations on the hymen secondary to childbirth and noted no extragenital physical injuries. The seminology examination yielded a negative result, and the doctor stated there was no medical basis to conclude sexual abuse, although she later retracted this upon scrutiny by the trial court. The Court emphasized that while a woman raped in a state of unconsciousness may prove her violation indirectly, a conscious victim must testify clearly, credibly, and consistently. The inconsistencies in Emerita's testimony were not considered minor as they related to the very fact of the commission of the offense charged. The Court emphasized that it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity and persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. In rape cases, the evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt. Given the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and the lack of corroborating medical evidence, the prosecution failed to discharge this burden for the crime of rape. On the issue of inconsistencies in the testimony of the private complainant: The Court reiterated that in rape cases, the credibility of the private complainant is of vital importance, and conviction may rest solely on her testimony if it is clear, credible, convincing, and unshaken. However, in this case, the inconsistencies in Emerita's testimony regarding the crucial details of the alleged rape, such as the timing of her loss of consciousness and the certainty of penetration, failed to meet the standard of consistency required for conviction. The Court highlighted that while minor inconsistencies do not detract from the fact of rape, those in Emerita's testimony related directly to the commission of the offense and thus cast serious doubt on its veracity. On the admissibility of the alleged extrajudicial admission: The Court ruled that the alleged admission of the appellant to SPO4 Lilia Hogar, as reflected in the Final Investigation Report, was inadmissible in evidence. The admission was not in writing and there was no showing that the appellant was assisted by a competent and independent counsel of his choice when he made the statement, as required by Section 2(d) of Republic Act 7438 in relation to Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, the trial court's reliance on this report was improper. On the conviction for acts of lasciviousness: Despite the failure to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt, the Court found the appellant liable for the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness. The records clearly showed that the appellant lay on top of the victim, mashed her breasts, and kissed her lips, which demonstrated his lewd design. Since acts of lasciviousness is a crime necessarily included in rape, the appellant could be convicted of this lesser offense. The Court noted that there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances alleged or proven, thus applying the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Main Doctrine
The vacillating account of the victim regarding the commission of rape, particularly concerning the fact of penetration and the state of consciousness during the alleged act, casts serious doubt on the veracity of her claim, necessitating a conviction for the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness, especially when the medical examination yields no corroborating physical evidence and an extrajudicial admission is inadmissible.