G.R. No. 140278 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds accused SONNY BAUTISTA y LACANILAO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt [of] the crime of Rape under Article 335 of the Revised [P]enal Code of the Philippines, as charged in the information. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law; to indemnify the private complainant Mischel Amparo the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos by way of moral damages; and to pay the costs of this suit. [2] The Information [3] dated March 14, 1996, charged appellant in these words: That on or about March 8, 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by then and there forcibly carrying her and lying her in bed, placing himself on top of her and kissing and embracing her tightly, and when said complainant is resisting and pushing him away from her, said accused punched her thighs, remov[ed] her clothes and panty and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent. [4] Upon his arraignment on April 16, 1996, [5] appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio, [6] pleaded not guilty. After trial in due course, the court a quo rendered the assailed Decision. The Facts Version of the Prosecution In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecutions version of the facts in the following manner: On March 8, 1996, appellant Sonny Bautista went to the house of Mischel Amparo at Bagong Silang, Quezon City. Mischel, who was fifteen [15] years old and in her third year in high school, knew appellant very well. He is the godchild by marriage of her parents and had previously rented a room in their house for a year. Appellants wife Analisa Sagot and Mischels mother, Crispina Amparo, were the best of friends and both worked as janitresses at Paz Manpower Agency. Thus, Crispina had readily agreed to Analisas request for the newly-wed couple to stay at their house. The bond between the two (2) women had drawn appellant and the Amparo family closer. Appellant, who worked as a taxi driver, was like a son to them. Mischel and her siblings addressed him as Kuya Sonny. Appellant pleaded [with] Mischel to skip her classes and to go with him and his wife to a supposed field trip in Cavite. Having complete trust [i]n him as a family friend and remembering the couples acts of kindness such as giving food to her family, Mischel agreed to go with him although she still had a class at 12:00 noon. Appellant told Mischel that they would fetch his wife in Sta. Mesa before going to Cavite. They boarded a bus going to Cubao. From Cubao, they took a jeep bound for Sta. Mesa. When they arrived in Sta. Mesa, Mischel asked appellant regarding her Ate Ana. Appellant replied that since she had yet to arrive with her co-employees, they should just pass time at the SM Centerpoin