G.R. Nos. 136317-18 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDUARDO YAOTO, ACCUSED-.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused EDUARDO YAOTO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged: CRIM. CASE NO. 6203-V-97 Accused Eduardo Yaoto is hereby sentenced to DEATH. He is likewise condemned to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00. CRIM.CASE NO. 6204-V-97 Accused Eduardo Yaoto is hereby sentenced to DEATH. He is ordered to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00. Costs against the accused. Let the complete records of the case be immediately forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act 7659. Hence, this automatic review. Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred: IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT; IN NOT GIVING EVEN AN IOTA OF WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED; AND IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE CASE AT BAR. Basically, accused-appellant assails the credibility of Angeline. He argues that based on Angeline's testimony: 1) it is improbable for accused-appellant to forcibly remove her blouse and bra while her hands were tied during the June 2, 1997 incident; 2) it is improbable for accused-appellant to remove her shorts and panty while her feet were tied together during the June 7, 1997 incident; 3) it is almost impossible for accused-appellant to spread the legs of Angeline and insert his private organ into her vagina while her feet were tied with a rope; and 4) it is highly improbable for accused-appellant to dress Angeline before untying her. In addition, accused-appellant submits that "it is beyond normal human condition for a man's penis to remain erect for thirty minutes inside the vagina of a woman during sexual intercourse, taking into consideration the age of the accused in this case." [3] Accused-appellant also questions Angeline's testimony that he guarded her whenever she went to the comfort room, chained her whenever he went out to buy food, and did not allow her to go out of the house from June 2, 1997 to June 7, 1997. According to accused-appellant, those were "unnatural behavior" that would have aroused the suspicion of household members, particularly, his brother's family. [4] Likewise, accused-appellant assails Angeline's testimony that he had a bolo and an ice pick with which he threatened her. He maintains that Angeline's testimony on the matter was doubtful considering the failure of the prosecution to offer said items in evidence, including the rope with which he allegedly tied her. Lastly, accused-appellant tries to discredit the medical findings on Angeline. He insists that the healing lacerations in complainant's genitals were caused by the latter's having sexual intercourse with her boyfriend. The arguments of accused-appellant are not meritorious. Accused-appellant asserts that it was highly improbable for him to have forcibly removed Angeline's blouse and bra since her hands were tied with a rope on a sofa. The validity of this argument, howeve