PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.

DEMOCRITO PARAS

Citation: G.R. No. 192912, June 4, 2014

Ponente: J. Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
Topic: Testimonial Evidences, Positive Identification

Facts:

Accused-Appellant Democrito Paras was charged with rape against a 17

year old minor, who subsequently got pregnant because of the incident. The
prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD) Field Officer Ma. Pamela Jusay, and Dr.
Marcelo Pilapil, the physician who physically examined the victime The defense
thereafter presented the testimonies of the Accused-Appellant Paras and his
mother, Luisa Paras.

The prosecution alleged that sometime around noon of the day of the
incident, while the victim was weeding grass using a bolo as a house-helper, the
Accused-Appellant approached her from behind and forcibly raped her. Afraid of
killing a person, the victim did not strike the bolo she was holding to defend
herself. After the crime was consummated, the Accused-Appellant fled and the
victim returned to the house of her employers. Due to the incident, the victim
got pregnant.

The defense, on the other hand, denied the incident and gave an alibi that
at the time of the incident, the Accused-Appellant was at the Lusaran market. He
also alleged that he was being accused of rape because of a misunderstanding
that transpired between him and his brother-in-law, who happened to be the
victims employer.

The Regional Trial Court convicted the Accused-Appellant of the crime

charged. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the victim, finding the
same frank, candid, and straightforward. The Court of Appeals upheld the
judgment of the lower court and affirmed its appreciation of the victims
testimony, which was held to be steadfast and unyielding throughout the direct
and cross-examinations.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Accused-Appellant is proven guilty beyond

reasonable doubt for the crime charged against him despite the
inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim?

2. Whether or not the determination of the date of fertilization is vital to

convict the Accused-Appellant of the crime charged?

Held:

1. Yes, the Accused-Appellant has been proven guilty beyond reasonable

doubt for the crime of rape.

1
 In People v. Maglente, it is held that the inconsistencies and discrepancies
in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for
acquittal. As long as the inaccuracies concern only minor matters, the same do
not affect the credibility of witnesses. Truth-telling witnesses are not always
expected to give error-free testimonies considering the lapse of time and
treachery of human memory. Inaccuracies may even suggest that the witnesses
are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed.

In this case, both the RTC and the CA adjudged the Accused-Appellant
guilty of rape by having carnal knowledge of the victim, without her consent
using force or intimidation. The courts a quo relied on the testimony of the victim
and her positive identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the
sexual abuse. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, for its
evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility, the trial judge is able to detect
that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused. The accused-appellants defenses of denial
and alibi, and failure to support the same with strong evidence of his lack of
guilt, said defenses cannot prevail over the positive identification of the victim.

2. No, the determination of the date of the fertilization is not vital to prove
the crime of rape.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides the elements to convict a
person charged with rape. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of
rape.

The findings of Dr. Pilapil that the victim was already three months
pregnant upon her examination, which causes a conflict on the testimony of the
victim as to the date of the incident, cannot be given merit. As ruled in People v.
Bejic, whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused,
or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive
is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter's will or
without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful
manner.