Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 145995 -

G.R. No. 145995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SATURNINO ILUIS Y JANDOC, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

En Banc

Cited Laws

RA 462RA 76RA 372RA 8353RA 449RA 631RA 530
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Saturnino Iluis y Jandoc @ `Masong’ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Item No. 4 of the last paragraph of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. “The accused is further ordered to pay AAA the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Saturnino Iluis y Jandoc @ `Masong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Item No. 4 of the last paragraph of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. The accused is further ordered to pay AAA the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as indemnification. [8] In this automatic review, appellant would have it that I . THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT SATURNINO ILUIS Y JANDOC BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF STATUTORY RAPE NOTWITHSTANDING THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE. II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE THE TRUE AGE OF THE VICTIM, WHICH WAS 6 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF THE RAPE, WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION NOR WAS IT DULY PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [9] The Court finds no sufficient basis for ignoring, let alone overturning, the factual assessment made by the court below. Once again, the Court must reiterate the familiar rule that the task of taking on the issue of credibility is a function properly lodged with the trial court and whose findings are entitled to great weight. [10] In this case, the trial court observed that AAA had remained consistent and demonstrated her credibility even with the extensive and rigorous cross-examination conducted by appellants counsel. [11] In assailing the credibility of the victim, who was only seven years old when she testified on the sexual ordeal she had suffered a year before, appellant would stress on her failure to give details of the commission of the crime. That, however, would not exactly appear to be the case. The victim testified: PROS. MAPILI: Q Between the months of August to October, 1997 do you remember if `Masong did something to you Madam Witness? A Yes, sir. Q What was that something which `Masong did to you? A He let me smoke, he took off my panty and he put his penis into my vagina, sir. Q And where were you when `Masong put his penis into your vagina? A In a little `kubo-kubo (small nipa hut), sir. COURT: Q Where is that little `kubo-kubo? A Near our shed, sir. PROS. MAPILI: Q That little `kubo-kubo is located near the house of your grandma Ana Abriam ? A Yes, sir. Q Is that `kubo-kubo still there at this time? A Yes sir, it still exists. Q So [how] did you feel when `Masong put his penis into your vagina? A I felt pain, sir. Q So what did you do when you felt the pain? A I remained silent, sir. Q Why did you not say or do something? A I was afraid, sir. Q Why were you afraid at that time? A Because of that thing that he did to me, sir. Q And what did `Masong do or tell you if any when he put his penis into your vagina? A That I will not tell the matter, sir. Q Now you said that `Masong warned you not to tell the matter, did you tell the matter to anyone? A Yes, sir. Q To whom did y