People v. Bermas

 

People v. Bermas

G.R. No. 235947

June 19, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Francisco Bermas y Asis for the crime of Rape. On 10 January 2008, AAA told her mother that she was to attend a birthday party near their house. AAA testified that as she was watching those having videoke, she was told by accused Bermas to go to Barangay Captain CCC's house. Upon her arrival, accused Bermas and one Garry Padilla were already at the house of the barangay captain. While at the stairs of the said house, accused Bermas allegedly told her "AAA, wag kang magsumbong marami aka ritong pera, sige na hubarin mo na ang panty mo." Both men then removed private complainants' shorts and underwear. Bermas showed her his penis, inserted it into her vagina and moved in a pumping motion. After a while, Bermas removed his penis and a liquid substance came out. Thereafter, Garry inserted his penis into her vagina.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not CA erred in convicting Bermas.

HELD:

                In rape cases, the prosecution has the burden to conclusively prove the two elements of the crime: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. However, it is equally true that in reviewing rape cases, the Court observes the following guiding principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.     

                As the victim apparently "consented" to the act, the Court necessarily had to determine whether this consent was vitiated, such that the act would amount to Rape under Article 266-A(l)(b) for having carnal knowledge with a woman "deprived of reason." However, as discussed, the prosecution failed to establish her mental retardation beyond reasonable doubt. In sum, the second element of the crime charged - that the victim be "deprived of reason" -was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in consonance with the constitutional right of presumption of innocence, the Court acquits Bermas of the crime charged.