Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila People of the Philippines, Complainant-Appellee,

-versus-

CRIMINAL CASE No. 2010-11-05

Hayden Co, Accused-Apellant.

x------------------------------------------x

COMMENT

APPELLEE, through counsel, in compliance of the Courts Order dated October 14, 2011 requiring Appellee to submit its Comment on the Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Accused-Appellant, hereby states that:
1.

Appellee admits and incorporates herein as part of this Comment the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Petition insofar as the personal circumstances of the private complainant and the accused are concerned;

2.

Appellee also admits and incorporates herein as part of the Comment the material allegations as set forth in paragraphs 4, and 5 of the Petition;

3.

Apellee denies the facts as stated in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 and instead presents the proven statement of facts as found by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4.

At about 5 oclock in the early morning of September 1, 2010, private complainant Miriam Rivera-Dantes was sleeping alone at their conjugal house; her husband Bingbong Dantes having been away on an out-of-town trip;

5. Complainant was then awakened by a strong odor of gin; and she saw respondent Hayden Co wearing only his underwear beside her on their marital bed trying to embrace and kiss complainant;

6. Shocked at what was happening, complainant shouted for help, but respondent punched her in the abdomen; complainant shouted again for help and he punched her again, this time hitting her in her left breast;

7. Respondent

then held complainant

by the neck,

warning her not to shout again or else he will kill complainant;

8. Complainant tried to fight back and resist but to no avail as he had superior strength over her and she was also very afraid that he would carry out his threat of killing her;

9. Respondent then was lying on top of complainant, with his right hand covering complainants mouth to stifle her shouting and with his left hand lowered

complainants panties which he succeeded to take off;

10.

After taking off his underwear, respondent then

inserted his penis into complainants vagina and had carnal knowledge of her (copy of Medico-Legal

Certificate issued by Dr. Mickey Melo attached as Annex A;

11.

After respondent was through with having carnal

knowledge of the complainant, he then again warned her not to tell her husband or the authorities what happened or else he will kill her and her husband;

12.

Respondent then wore his pants and exited

through the complainants houses front door;

13.

Complainant then rushed to the front door and

shouted for help; she then saw her husbands cousin Dennis Trujillo outside and told him that respondent had raped her; although Mr. Trujillo was not able to catch respondent;
14.

Complainant, assisted by Mr. Trujillo and his wife, then went to their Barangay Captain to report the incident;

15.

Accompanied

by

the

Barangay

Captain,

complainant then went to the Sto. Tomas Police Station to report the crime done against her;

16.

In an Information dated December 1, 2010 accusedappellant was then charged with the crime of rape committed against the private complainant;

17.

On January 15, 2011, on the basis of warrant of arrest issued by Judge Maximo Asuncion of Branch XXV of the Regional Trial Court, the accused-appellant having made himself scarce since the incident, was arrested away from Sto. Tomas, in Naga City. The accused-appellant was consequently tried before the Regional Trial Court and was found guilty as charged with the crime of rape; On appeal before the Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court;

18.

19.

20.

Consequently, the accused-appellant filed before

this Honorable Court, the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; ISSUE

The Petition purported to have presented two issues as questions of law, to wit:
1.

Whether or not Petitioner is guilty of rape despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and

2. Whether

the

trial

court

gravely

erred

in

not

considering the defense interposed by the accusedappellant.

ARGUMENT The prosecution did prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals did not err in finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape.

DISCUSSION

The Petition did not raise questions of law

Elementary is the rule that a petition for review must only raise questions of law and not of fact. A cursory reading of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provide: SECTION 1. Filing of petition with

Supreme Court.A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the

Regional Trial Court or other courts

whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified The

petition for review on certiorari.

petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.)

On the first issue, as to whether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the accused appellant anchors his hope of acquittal in this wise: The incident occurred in the dwelling house of the private complainant with her baby while the rest of the children were sleeping in the same house. While private complainant allegedly struggling to repel the attack against her honor, her baby was crying loudly. Hence it is impossible that the children who are just sleeping near the alleged room where the offense was committed are not awakened if there was indeed a struggle between private complainant and the accused. It is as glaring as the light of the midday sun that under the guise of ostensibly raising questions of law, the Petition

raised questions of fact. The Petition seeks to reverse and to put into question the findings of fact as found by the lower courts. By this ground alone the Petition should be dismissed outright. Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Pure issues of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law (Liberty Construction vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106601, June 28, 1996).

Just to put a grievous hole in the theory of the accused about the impossibility of the rape happening under the

circumstances, the Supreme Court has this to say in People vs. Agbayani (284 SCRA 315, 340): The evil in man has no conscience, the beast in him bears no respect for time and place, it drives him to commit rape anywhere. In People vs. Mangompit, Jr. (G.R. No. 139962-66, March 7, 2001) the Supreme Court held that it was not impossible or incredible for the members of the complainants family to be in deep slumber as not to be awakened while the brutish sexual assault was committed. Lust respects no time and place (People vs. Nogpo, G.R. No. 184791, April 16, 2009).

Findings of fact of the trial court

are entitled to great weight

As correctly found by the trial court, private complainants version of rape by the accused-appellant is more credible and sounds more real. These findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight (People vs. Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, August 10, 2011), as assessing credibility is the domain of the trial court (People vs. Nogpo, G.R. No. 184791, April 16, 2009).

Findings of fact of the appellate court are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals further affirmed the findings of the trial court. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court (People vs. Lingasa, G.R. No. 192187, December 13, 2010). All doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions are resolved in favor of the Court of Appeals (Pilar Development Corporation vs. IAC, G.R. No. 72283, December 12, 1986).

The accused took flight indicating his guilt of the crime

A square peg in a round hole of accused-appellants pretense of innocence is the fact that the accused-appellant took flight immediately after the incident. The records show that he was arrested some four months after the incident in a remote barangay of Naga City. Flight signifies an

awareness of guilt (People vs. Avero, G.R. No. 76483, August 30, 1988).

Even the wisdom of King Solomon finds an obvious indication of the guilt of the accused, as provided in the Bible in Proverbs 28:1, The wicked flee though no man pursue, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. This biblical precept has found jurisprudential application as evidence of guilt of the accused (People vs Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, February 22, 1996).

The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt

The prosecution presented three witnesses: the private complainant whose direct and affirmative testimony proved the crime of rape committed against her by the accusedappellant; Dr. Mickey Melo, whose findings in the MedicoLegal Report and whose testimony corroborated the material allegations by the private complainant, proved that there was carnal knowledge and that the private complainant sustained injuries as result of the rape; and the testimony of Dennis Trujillo, whose testimony proved that the accused was present in the private complainants residence during the time of the incident.

In short, taken with the direct and affirmative testimony of private complainant, the findings of rape by the expert witness, and the corroborative testimony of the eyewitness, no other conclusion may otherwise be found: that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as found by the Regional Trial Court and as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Sweetheart theory as a defense in rape is inherently weak

Anent the second issue, the lower courts did not err in not considering the sweetheart defense of the accusedappellant.

The accused-appellant, in a desperate attempt to lend credence to his masquerade of innocence, decided to take shelter in the hole-filled ceiling of the sweetheart theory. In interposing this much-abused defense against the

accusation of rape, the accused-appellant only managed to cast serious doubts about his innocence and made the job of the prosecution to prove rape much easier.

The accused-appellant, by admitting carnal knowledge, must show by substantial evidence the supposed relationship (People vs. Amalfin, G.R. No. 124975, February 20, 2002). This accused-appellant woefully failed to do.

First, accused-appellants claim that he and the private complainant were sweethearts is self-serving and inherently weak (People vs. Nogpo). This became even weaker when supported by a friend whose testimony deserves scant consideration.

Second, accused appellant, despite his wild fantasies of illicit relationship with the private complainant, did not even present any text message, love letter, memento, nor pictures as proof of the supposed adulterous relationship (People vs. Casao, G.R. No. 100913, March 23, 1993). A sweetheart defense to be credible, should be

substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship (People vs. Garces, G.R. No. 132368, January 20, 2000).

Third, even granting arguendo that the accused-appellant and private complainant were indeed adulterous lovers, rape could still be committed if he had carnal knowledge with the private complainant against her will (People vs. Vallena, G.R. No. 106283, June 1, 1995). A love affair does not justify rape (People vs. Garces) nor is it a license for lust (People vs. Manahan, G.R. No. 128157, September 29, 1999).

The theory of accused-appellant tried to swim against the torrential current of the law, evidence, and well-entrenched jurisprudence, but ultimately drowned.

Taking all of these in consideration, the accused-appellant failed to present any convincing reason why this Honorable

Court should overturn the findings of the courts below. Hence, the judgment of guilt must be affirmed.

PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the complainant-appelle, respectfully prays the Court to affirm the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding the accused-appellant Hayden Co guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the offended party P 50,000 as civil indemnity and P 50,000 as moral damages. 17 October, 2011. Makati City. MARCUS AURELIUS Assistant Solicitor-General