G.R. No. 131516 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RONNIE RULLEPA Y GUINTO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused RONNIE RULLEPA y GUINTO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape , and he is accordingly sentenced to death . The accused is ordered to pay AAA the amount of P 40,000.00 as civil indemnity . Costs to be paid by the accused. [10] (Italics in the original.) Hence, this automatic review, accused-appellant assigning the following errors to the trial court: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONSIDERING AS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ADMISSION . II THE COURT A QUO ERRED ON (sic) RULING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS SILENCE DURING TRIAL AMOUNTED TO AN IMPLIED ADMISSION OF GUILT . III THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. IV THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. [11] (Italics supplied.) Accused-appellant assails the crediting by the trial court, as the following portion of its decision shows, of his admission to Gloria of having sexually assaulted AAA: In addition , the mother asserted that Rullepa had admitted AAAs complaint during the confrontation in the house. Indeed, according to the mother, the admission was even expressly qualified by Rullepas insistence that he had committed the sexual assault only once , specifying the time thereof as 4:00 pm of November 17, 1995. That qualification proved that the admission was voluntary and true. An uncoerced and truthful admission like this should be absolutely admissible and competent. x x x x x x x x x Remarkably, the admission was not denied by the accused during trial despite his freedom to deny it if untrue. Hence, the admission became conclusive upon him. [12] (Italics supplied.) To accused-appellant, the statements attributed to him are inadmissible since they were made out of fear, having been elicited only after AAAs parents bullied and questioned him. He thus submits that it was error for the trial court to take his failure to deny the statements during the trial as an admission of guilt. Accused-appellants submission does not persuade. The trial court considered his admission merely as an additional ground to convince itself of his culpability. Even if such admission, as well as the implication of his failure to deny the same, were disregarded, the evidence suffices to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The plain, matter-of-fact manner by which AAA described her abuse in the hands of her Kuya Ronnie is an eloquent testament to the truth of her accusations. Thus she testified on direct examination: q- Do you recall if Ronnie Rullepa did anything to you? a- Yes, sir. q- What did he do to you? a- Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko, at sa bunganga q- How many times did he do that to you? a- Twice, sir. x x x x x x x x x q- Do you remember when he did these things to you? a- Opo . q- When was that? a- When my mother was asleep, he put he removed my pan