G.R. No. 199268 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. AURELIO JASTIVA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premised in the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Aurelio Jastiva GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to serve the determinate penalty of reclusion perpetua. In view of his conviction and without need of further proof, he is also ordered to pay complainant [AAA] the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages. Being a detention prisoner, Aurelio Jastiva is entitled to the full benefit of his preventive detention. [24] (Citations omitted.) Aggrieved, appellant Jastiva questioned his conviction to the Court of Appeals grounded on the following: ( i ) the RTC gravely erred by giving weight to the testimony of [AAA] that she recognized the accused-appellant when he went out of the house of [AAA]; and ( ii ) the RTC gravely erred in convicting [the] accused-appellant despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [25] In his Brief, [26] appellant Jastiva particularly argued the following points, ( i ) that [t]he identity of the appellant was not established, x x x considering that the private complainant herself admitted that the room where the alleged incident happened was dark; ( ii ) that the witness could not possibly identify the real culprit because she testified that she only saw his back, albeit the alleged moonlight; ( iii ) that private complainant even opened the door for her rapist to let the latter go out of her house x x x private complainant had all the opportunity to shout for help but she did not do so; ( iv ) that the private complainants two conflicting statements in her sworn affidavit that appellant Jastiva removed her panty and inserted his penis in her vagina vis-à-vis her testimony in open court that appellant Jastiva removed her panty but first sucked her vagina to make his penis erect, and then inserted his penis into her vagina seriously cast doubts on her credibility; ( v ) that [t]he testimony of the private complainant failed to show any force or intimidation exerted upon her person as appellant Jastiva was still able to engage in sexual foreplay with leisure prior to the actual sexual intercourse; ( vi ) that [t]he absence of rape is further bolstered by the medial (sic) findings x x x the medical certificate states, among other things, that no sign of irritation at the external genitalia; external genitalia appeared multiparous with corrugated skin folds x x x; and ( vii ) that his defense of alibi and denial should be given great weight in view of the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution. [27] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for appellee People of the Philippines, rebutted the foregoing points with the two basic counter-arguments: ( i ) that [b]ased on the x x x testimonies [of AAA], the