Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MOLE y SANTOS 416 SCRA 520 (2003)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MOLE y SANTOS 416 SCRA 520 (2003)

When inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim put serious doubts on her claim of rape, the Court shall resolve the same in favor of the accused. Accused Romeo Mole (MOLE), an albularyo (quack doctor) was consulted by Emerita Reyes, her husband Wilfredo and their three children sometime in April 1997 as they have been experiencing itchiness all over their bodies. The Reyeses were diagnosed to be victims of kulam (witchcraft). Mole went to the house of the Reyeses the next day to continue their treatment. At about 11:00 p.m., Romeo left the Reyeses residence after receiving the payment for his services. However, he came back at about 12:00 midnight looking for Emerita‘s youngest son, he was saying that the sorcerer will kill her son and to save him, Romeo needed P2,500.00. The distressed Emerita immediately gave the said amount to Mole who thereafter went to the bedroom and sprinkled an overpowering liquid on Wilfredo and their three children. Mole also sprinkled the same on Emerita, blew something on her chest and, while looking at her eyes, mumbled as if in prayer upon which Emerita instantly felt weak and dizzy. Romeo then hauled Emerita to the kitchen, laid her on the floor and removed her underwear. She wanted to resist, however she was too weak and dizzy. Romeo, who was naked from waist down, lay on top of her after removing her underwear, whereupon she lost consciousness; and that after she regained consciousness, her entire body, including her vagina, was aching. She thus concluded that she was raped. She reported her experience to the police and upon physically examination it was found that there was no medical basis to conclude that she had been subjected to sexual abuse. Giving weight to the testimony of Emerita and relying on Romeo‘s verbal admission to the police of having raped the victim, as reflected in the aforementioned datum in the Final Investigation Report, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Romeo Mole of rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC is correct in convicting Romeo Mole of rape when it failed to consider certain unrebutted substantial matters of facts tending to show the non-occurrence or at least a doubtful occurrence of rape

HELD:

Although the findings of trial courts are normally respected and not disturbed on appeal, Inconsistencies in the testimony of Emerita put serious doubts on her claim of rape, compelling this Court to reverse Romeo‘s conviction. Emerita‘s vacillating account of the incident failed to stand the test of consistency. The Court is thus put on guard as to the veracity of her claim. For while minor inconsistencies do not detract from the actual fact of rape, those in Emerita‘s testimony may not be considered minor for they relate to the fact of commission of the offense charged. The credibility of the private complainant is of vital importance for, in view of the peculiar nature of rape, conviction or acquittal rest entirely upon her. It has thus become doctrine that the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the victim‘s testimony by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points. A woman raped in as state of unconsciousness would not be able to narrate her defloration during that state, and her violation may be proved indirectly by other evidence, Whereas, a woman fully conscious at the time of rape need only testify in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remain consistent in her testimony to convict the accused.