G.R. No. 112088 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RONALDO ALMADEN, ALIAS "DODONG", ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused RONALDO ALMADEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to indemnify the offended party (Arlene Saldaña) the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P 30,000) as moral damages. [2] A complaint for "sexual assault" was filed on January 4, 1991, by the victim. Arlene Saldaña against appellant Almaden with the Municipal Trial Court of Palo, Leyte. [3] The municipal trial court conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended that appellant be charged with attempted rape. [4] However, the provincial prosecutor, after review of the case, filed an information for rape that reads: That on or about the 27th day of December, 1990, in the Municipality of Palo, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent-and with lewd designs, and by means of force, threats and intimidation did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one ARLENE SALDAÑA- A, a 10-year old girl, without her consent and against her will and to her damage and prejudice. [5] Arraignment was initially postponed upon manifestation of the defense that appellant Almaden was suffering from mental disorder. [6] After a mental examination determined that he was competent to stand trial, [7] Almaden was arraigned on June 21, 1991. [8] He pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape. [9] To a large extent, the facts of the case are not in dispute. The victim Arlene Saldaña was then a young girl of 11 years. [10] Appellant admitted that the incident occurred on December 27, 1990, at around 8 o'clock in the morning, in Barangay Cahindok, Palo, Leyte. On that fateful morning, young Arlene was gathering firewood upon instructions of her mother with her friend Edwin Sudario, [11] also a minor. [12] Appellant Almaden chanced upon them as he was on his way to his farm. [13] He approached the children and ordered them to undress. [14] Arlene took off her shorts and underwear while Edwin lowered his jogging pants down to his knees. Arlene was ordered to lie on the ground and Edwin to place himself on top of Arlene. They were then made to simulate the sexual act. [15] From this point, the versions of the prosecution and the defense vary. According to appellant, he left Arlene and Edwin immediately after the two had commenced to simulate the sexual act, and he continued on his way to his farm. [16] Yet, according to the prosecution, there was a more malevolent twist to the story. Arlene and Edwin testified that, contrary to appellant's declaration, appellant Almaden did not leave them as they were simulating the sexual act. Rather, appellant positioned himself nearby and closely observed them with his weapon ready. [17] At the time of the incident, appellant was armed with