People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Olpindo y Reyes,
G.R. No. 252861, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. AAA, then 14 years old, and her sister, BBB, were on their way home, when a tricycle driven by accused stopped in front of them.
2. Accused and his sister Mary Ann, who was on board the tricycle, asked AAA to send BBB home as they allegedly had something important to tell her. AAA refused but BBB got scared so she ran away and went home to ask for help. Thereafter, accused and Mary Ann forced AAA aboard the tricycle. Accused drove to Barangay X with Mary Ann sitting beside AAA to prevent her from escaping. Mary Ann allegedly got off the tricycle before reaching Barangay X, but AAA was unable to ask for help.
3. Upon arrival at Barangay X, accused forcibly took AAA to an uninhabited place. He tied her hands with rope, slammed her to the floor, then removed her short pants and underwear. He took off his clothes and thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina and made up and down movements. AAA felt pain and cried.
4. After satisfying his lust, accused withdrew his penis, untied AAA, and got dressed.
5. The RTC found accused guilty of rape.
6. The CA noted that accused failed to file a notice of appeal and that, in its Order, the RTC, citing People v. Mateo, forwarded the records of the case to the CA for automatic review.
Issues:
· Whether or not the case is subject to automatic review
· Whether or not the non-filing of notice of appeal can be excused by the Supreme Court
· Whether or not accused is guilty of the crime of rape
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that the present case is not subject to appeal. This was an e1Toneous application of the Mateo ruling.
In criminal cases where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC. On the other hand, in criminal cases where the penalty imposed by the R TC is death, the CA shall automatically review the same without need of a notice of appeal.
SECOND ISSUE
Yes. Accused-appellant's non-filing of a notice of appeal may be excused because the RTC, on its own, elevated the records of the case to the CA based on its erroneous assumption that the verdict of conviction is subject to an automatic intermediate review.
To be clear, the RTC order forwarding the records of the case pursuant to the Mateo ruling was issued on December 15, 2016, which was 14 days after the RTC promulgated its ruling on December 1, 2016, or within the 15-day reglementary period under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court for the accused to file a notice of appeal. As initially discussed, the CA could have just treated the automatic review as if a notice of appeal was timely filed by herein accused-appellant considering "the gravity of the crime committed by accused-appellant and the penalty imposed on him by the RTC." This would better serve the interests of justice as it provides an additional layer of protection against a possible erroneous judgment.
THIRD ISSUE
Yes. Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime. As such, the accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent, and convincing.
It is also well-settled that the accused in a rape case may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Here, both the RTC and the CA found that AAA's testimony was straightforward and candid.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment