PEOPLE V ECHEGARAY

PEOPLE, plaintiff-appellee v. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 117472 June 25, 1996

PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after her three
brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling session in another place, she
heard her father, the accused-appellant, order her brothers to go out of the house. Then,
the accused-appellant approached her, dragged her into the room, and forcefully inserted
his penis into Rodessa’s organ causing her to suffer intense pain. After the act, appellant
threatened to kill her mother if she would divulge what had happened. Frightened, Rodessa
kept to herself the ordeal she suffered. She was very afraid of appellant because the latter,
most of the time, was high on drugs. The sexual assaults happened up to the fifth time,
and Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, who told Rosalie,
Rodessa’s mother. They immediately went to the Barangay Captain where Rodessa confided
the sexual assaults she suffered. Rodessa was brought to the precinct where she executed
an affidavit. Rodessa testified that the said sexual assaults happened only during the time
when her mother was pregnant. Rodessa added that at first, her mother was on her side.
However, when appellant was detained, her mother kept on telling her. "Kawawa naman
ang Tatay mo, nakakulong". When Rodessa was examined by the medico-legal, the
complainant was described as physically on a non-virgin state, as evidenced by the
presence of laceration of the hymen of said complainant.
The accused-appellant presented a different story, saying the complaint was forced
upon Rodessa by her grandma and the answers in the sworn statement were coached. The
accusation of rape was motivated by the grandma’s greed over the lot situated at the
Madrigal Estate-NHA Project which her grandmother's paramour, Conrado Alfonso gave to
the accused in order to persuade the latter to admit that Rodessa executed an affidavit of
desistance after it turned out that her complaint of attempted homicide was substituted
with the crime of rape at the instance of her mother. The accused also asserted that the
imputed offense is far from his mind considering that he treated Rodessa as his own
daughter. He categorically testified that he was in his painting job site on the date and time
of the alleged commission of the crime.
The lower court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
dismissed the alibi and lent credence to the straightforward testimony of the ten-year old
victim to whom no ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant can be attributed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court failed to appreciate the sinister motive of private
complainant's grandmother.
Whether or not lower court overlooked the fact that the healed lacerations at 3 and 7
o'clock could not have been due to the pumping of the penis of accused to the vagina of
private complainant
Whether or not the lower court ignored the defense of alibi that the accused was at work
during the commission of the crime.
RULING:
It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is
credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused. Jurisprudence rules that,
“No woman especially one of tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter expose herself to a
public trial, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended
and punished”.
The accused-appellant points out certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses in his attempt to bolster his claim that the rape accusation against
PEOPLE, plaintiff-appellee v. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 117472 June 25, 1996
him is malicious and baseless, but these alleged discrepancies merely pertain to minor
details which in no way pose serious doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses, thus inconsequential to the judgment of the conviction.
The Court finds that the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses deserves our utmost respect in the absence of arbitrariness.
Also, in the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal examiner, categorically testified that
the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina were consistent with the date of the
commission of the rape.
The accused-appellant argues that the Contract of services need not be corroborated
for no law is expressly requiring it. In view of finding that the prosecution witnesses have
no motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellant, the uncorroborated alibi should
be completely disregarded. More importantly, the defense of alibi which is inherently weak
becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused-appellant as
perpetrator of the crime of rape by his victim, Rodessa. The Contract is not proof of the
whereabouts of the accused-appellant at the time of the commission of the offense.
The accused-appellant in this case is charged with Statutory Rape based on the
complaint. It is highly inconceivable that it is rehearsed and fabricated upon instructions
from Rodessa's maternal grandmother Asuncion Rivera as asserted by the accused-
appellant.
With regards to the penalty of the accused, death penalty is imposed under the Death
Penalty Law, on the grounds that (a) Rodessa is under 18 years of age and; (b) the offender
is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch
104.
SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE V ECHEGARAY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V ECHEGARAY

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V ECHEGARAY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE, plaintiff-appellee v. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.

G.R. No. 117472 June 25, 1996

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.