People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs.

Alejandro Rellota y Tadeo, Respondent

G.R. No. 168103 | August 3, 2010 | Peralta, J.

SUMMARY: AAA, a 12-year old minor, was allegedly raped by her aunts 2nd husband, appellant Rellota. Based
on the testimonies of AAA, 3 incidents of rape occurred between September 1993 and January 1994. She said
that in those instances, appellant kissed her, touched her private parts, and forced his penis in her vagina. After
the 3rd incident, AAA told her older sister about it. Thereafter, they filed 3 separate cases for rape against
appellant before the trial court. In his defense, appellant assails the credibility of AAA's testimony because of
inconsistencies and falsehoods.

Trial court found appellant guilty of 3 counts of rape. CA affirmed this decision but modified the penalty such
that appellant was found guilty of 2 counts of consummated rape and of 1 count of attempted rape.

SC affirmed CAs decision but modified the sentence. As to the alleged inconsistencies and falsehoods in AAAs
testimony, SC held that these inconsistencies are minor ones which do not affect the credibility of AAA nor
erase the fact that the latter was raped. A victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each of the
previous incidents. As to defense of the accused, denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on
affirmative matters. In this case, the records are devoid of any clear and convincing evidence that would
substantiate appellant's denial. Lastly, as to the sentence for the January 1994 incident, SC held that appellants
acts do not constitute consummated or attempted rape, but were only acts of lasciviousness. Appellants acts
of removing the towel wrapped in the body of AAA, laying her on the sofa and kissing and touching her private
parts do not exactly demonstrate the intent of appellant to have carnal knowledge of AAA on that particular
date.

DOCTRINES:
In the disposition of review of rape cases, the Court is guided by these principles:
The prosecution must show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that
degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction;
The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence of the defense;
Unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of
witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal;
An accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and,
In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.

Rellota contends that AAAs testimony was inconsistent because she said he removed her panty and shorts on
the December 20 rape which was impossible because she said she only wrapped her body with a towel as she
had just taken a bath. SC said this is without merit as she was raped twice that day. First was the bath and the
second was when she was already dressed and Rellota returned to rape her. There was a lapse of time between
the two. Not inconsistent. Nevertheless, if there are inconsistencies, the said inconsistencies pointed out by
appellant are minor ones which do not affect the credibility of AAA nor erase the fact that the latter was raped.
The inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable, since a victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for
each of the previous incidents, since these may just be but mere fragments of a prolonged and continuing
nightmare, a calvary she might even be struggling to forget.

When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and the offense
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included
in the offense proved. Acts of lasciviousness are necessarily included in rape. (Sec. 4, Rule 120 of Revised
Rules in CrimPro