Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ILLUSTRE LLAGAS a.ka. NONOY LLAGAS 586 SCRA 707 (2009)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ILLUSTRE LLAGAS a.ka. NONOY LLAGAS 586 SCRA 707 (2009)

Absence of ill-motive to testify against the appellant, the straightforward and candid testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to warrant conviction. Appellant Illustre Llagas was accused of raping AAA, a waitress at a restaurant and karaoke bar in Baguio City. It was alleged that Llagas and AAA agreed to meet because the latter was going to buy his cellphone. Llagas however, told AAA that he left his charger at his house and suggested that they go there to get it. He assured AAA that they would not be alone there. Upon arriving at Llagas‘ house, AAA found that they were alone so she tried to leave but Llagas locked the door. She insisted to leave but Llagas boxed her and threatened her with a kitchen knife when she struggled. He succeeded in pulling her inside a room and did then and there raped her. While she was crying, his cellphone rang, which gave AAA an opportunity to escape. Llagas denied such accusation and claimed that he had sexual intercourse with her and that it happened by mutual consent. The trial court found Llagas guilty of rape. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, but modified the award of moral damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Llagas committed the crime of rape by using force and intimidation

HELD:

In the main, Llagas submits in his Appellant‘s Brief filed before the appellate court that his act of answering a phone call from his wife ―on the very same date and time that he was allegedly raping [AAA] is more of an evidence of consensual sexual intercourse and not of forced carnal knowledge.‖ Such change of theory on appeal can only be construed against his innocence, however. For while before the trial court appellant denied having had sexual intercourse with AAA on April 16, 2003, he admitted having done so but on February 28 or 29, 2003 and with AAA‘s consent. But even if the Court were to credit Llagas‘ change of position when the case reached the appellate court, his citation of his having received his wife‘s phone call as negating the use of force or intimidation is illogical, to say the least. For it was, in fact, on account of his talking to his wife on the phone that AAA found the opportunity to escape. AAA‘s vivid account, which was punctuated with her crying, of how she was sexually assaulted by appellant clearly shows the total absence of consensual sex as claimed by him. The trial and appellate courts found AAA‘s straightforward, candid, and spontaneous testimony credible as it bears the hallmarks of a truthful witness, unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions. The credibility of a rape victim is augmented where, as here, there is absolutely no evidence which even remotely suggests that she could have been actuated by ill-motive to testify against appellant.