People of The Philippines, Appellee, vs. Roger DURANO, Appellant
People of The Philippines, Appellee, vs. Roger DURANO, Appellant
Durano
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J : p
Before us for review is the Decision 1 dated April 28, 2006 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00204-MIN affirming the Judgment 2
rendered by Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City convicting
the appellant of two counts of rape.
On July 9, 1999, appellant was charged with four counts of rape and
one count of robbery 3 docketed as Crim. Case Nos. 43505-99 to 43509-99.
He was acquitted of two counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 43507-99 and
43508-99 for insufficiency of evidence, and of robbery in Crim. Case No.
43509-99. However, he was convicted of two counts of rape in Criminal Case
Nos. 43505-99 and 43506-99. cTAaDC
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
while the Information in Criminal Case No. 43506-99 states:
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 1/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The facts as summarized by the Solicitor General:
Private complainant is a working student who stays at the
convent of the BBB Sisters at Ulas, Davao City (TSN, p. 4, May 10,
2000).
At 3:45 in the afternoon of April 13, 1999, private complainant
left the convent and proceeded to Fuji Photograph Center located at
San Pedro Street, Davao City for the copying of some pictures. Since
the process would take an hour, she decided to watch a movie at
Queens Theater (TSN, p. 9, May 10, 2000). jurcda
After leaving the movie theater and while she was nearing a
gasoline station along Bonifacio Street, private complainant noticed
that appellant was following her. She continued walking but she was
surprised to see that appellant was already beside her. (TSN, p. 23,
May 11, 2000; p. 32, June 30, 2000). Appellant, then, held her right
shoulder. He identified himself as a member of the police and junior
drug buster and showed private complainant his identification card
(TSN, p. 7, 23, May 11, 2000). Appellant told her that she was Grace
of Maa, a drug user and a "buntog" (prostitute) and for which reason
he had to arrest her (TSN, p. 7, May 10, 2000; p. 32, June 30, 2000).
Private complainant insisted that she was not Grace of Maa
and she was neither a drug user nor a prostitute (TSN, p. 8, May 10,
2000). When appellant insisted on arresting her, private complainant
agreed to go with appellant to Rizal Park near the Legislative Building
to prove that she was not the person of loose morals appellant
claimed her to be (TSN, p. 8, May 10, 2000; p. 33, June 30, 2000). In
the park, they sat on the grass and talked. She freely talked about
her life and even gave her telephone number to appellant to prove to
him that she was not Grace of Maa (TSN, p. 37, June 30, 2000).
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 2/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
AAA decided to report the incident upon the advice of CCC because on
April 15, 1999, appellant showed up at their house on the pretext that
complainant has to sign some papers. He also ordered AAA to meet him at
the Mercury Drug Store the following day. AAA felt shame and fear upon
seeing the appellant. 7
CCC testified that on the night of April 13, 1999, complainant confided
to her the rape incident. Complainant appeared agitated and afraid as she
was crying and shivering while recounting the incident. The following day,
complainant was not her usual self at work. Thus, she advised and
accompanied complainant to report the incident to the authorities at the Toril
Police Station. 8
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 3/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
SPO1 Bitgue testified that on April 15, 1999, complainant went to the
Women and Child Desk in Davao City crying and trembling. She moved from
one table to another and stared at the window from time to time. Thus, she
transferred her in a closed room to make her feel safe and comfortable. She
then transcribed the narrations made by complainant in the blotter report
marked as Exhibit B. 10
Dr. Samuel Cruz, Medical Officer of the City Health Office, examined
complainant the following day. He found purplish contusions on her breast and
a deep hymenal laceration. 11 He testified that the age of the physical injuries
is consistent with the alleged date of infliction. 12
Dr. Marilou Villanueva, a psychiatrist connected with the Davao Medical
School Foundation, diagnosed complainant on April 19, 1999. In her
psychiatric report, 13 she found complainant as suffering from acute stress
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depression, moderate. She
testified that during the rape incident, complainant was experiencing acute
stress disorder which impaired her consent. 14
Appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with complainant on April
13, 1999 but alleged that it was consensual. His version of the events was
summarized in Appellant's Brief 15 as follows: IcHDCS
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 4/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 5/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
On March 15, 2001, the trial court rendered its Decision convicting the
appellant of two counts of rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution, more
than sufficient, to prove, the guilt of accused, Roger Durano only in
Crim. Case No. 43,505-99, and Criminal Case No. 43,506-99, in two
counts of rape pursuant to Art. 334 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 7659, under Art. 9 of said amendatory act
without any aggravating circumstances, proved by the prosecution
against accused, Roger Durano, in the commission of the offense
charged, said above-mentioned accused, is sentenced to suffer a
penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the above-criminal cases
together with all accessory penalty as provided for by law. DaHISE
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 6/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
SO ORDERED. 17
The case was brought before this Court on automatic review, however,
pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, 18 the case was referred to the Court
of Appeals.
On April 28, 2006, the appellate court rendered its Decision affirming
the appellant's conviction with modification as to damages. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
DISMISSED. The assailed Judgment rendered by the court a quo is
hereby AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that the Appellant
is further ordered to pay the Appellee the amount of Php 50,000.00
as moral damages, Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another
Php 25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. HEISca
SO ORDERED. 19
Hence, this appeal.
Appellant assails the credibility of the complainant's testimony. He
claims that her account of the alleged rape is unbelievable considering her
conduct before, during and after the incident. He argues that complainant's
claim that she was arrested or mistaken for a drug user is highly improbable
considering that he never employed force, intimidation, or threat on
complainant or used deadly weapon upon her person. On the contrary, she
went with him voluntarily to the park and during their lengthy conversation
even gave her telephone number to him. She willingly talked to him and told
him about her life and family, including her financial woes. More importantly,
she voluntarily accepted his invitation to go to Talisay Lodge. 20
According to appellant, complainant who is a college graduate should
know that Talisay Lodge is a lovers' rendezvous. Yet, she never resisted or
attempted to seek the help of other people despite opportunities to do so.
We are not persuaded.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 7/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 8/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
Appellant's claim that the sexual act between him and complainant was
consensual must fail. The bruises 28 found on complainant's body corroborate
her testimony that she resisted appellant, albeit unsuccessfully. 29 Physical
evidence of bruises or scratches eloquently speaks of the force employed
upon the rape victim. 30 Besides, the trial court observed that complainant was
naïve and can be easily manipulated or influenced by others, to wit:
Moreover, other than her shy personality and appearing
without firm judgment of herself, as could easily be drag by strong
influence of others, complainant can be an easy victim of accused's
intimidation and clever maneuvering for purely professional and
selfish motivation. EDISaA
make her escape impossible. 34 Indeed, all these led her to believe that it
would be futile for her to resist appellant. Failing to resist the advances of her
malefactor is not a manifestation of consent, but rather an indication of
involuntary submission. 35 cITAaD
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 10/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Chico-Nazario and Nachura, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 5-23. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and
concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Myrna Dimaranan-
Vidal.
2. CA rollo, pp. 25-53. Penned by Judge Renato A. Fuentes, dated March
15, 2001.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 11/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
3. Id. at 9-13.
4. Id. at 9.
5. Id. at 10.
6. Id. at 144-148.
7. TSN, May 10, 2005, pp. 22-25.
8. TSN, March 14, 2000, pp. 7-12.
9. CA rollo, p. 32; TSN, May 10, 2000, pp. 4-12.
10. TSN, March 24, 2000, pp. 4-6.
11. Exhibit "A;" Annex "B," records, p. 10.
12. TSN, March 21, 2000, p. 12.
13. Exhibit "C," records, pp. 74-75.
14. TSN, July 5, 2000, pp. 12-15, 36-38.
15. CA rollo, pp. 74-94.
16. Id. at 83-86.
17. Id. at 52-53.
18. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
19. Rollo, p. 22.
20. CA rollo, p. 88.
21. People v. Cantila, Jr., 442 Phil. 641, 650-651 (2002).
22. People v. Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, August 31, 2006.
23. People v. Vedra, G.R. No. 108615, October 9, 2000, 342 SCRA 317,
324.
24. People v. Suyu, G.R. No. 170191, August 16, 2006.
25. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
26. Id.
27. People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993, 226 SCRA
156, 174.
28. TSN, March 21, 2000, p. 12.
29. TSN, May 10, 2000, pp. 14-17; June 30, 2000, pp. 47-48.
30. See People v. Cantila, Jr., supra note 21. HATICc
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 12/13
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 175316 | People v. Durano
34. TSN, May 10, 2000, p. 8-10; June 30, 2000, pp. 32-35.
35. People v. Domingo, supra note 27 at 169.
36. People v. Ibay, G.R. No. 101631, June 8, 1994, 233 SCRA 15, 25.
37. TSN, July 5, 2000, pp. 36-38.
38. People v. Loyola, supra note 32 at 77.
39. TSN, May 10, 2005, pp. 22-25.
40. CA rollo, p. 49.
41. People v. Loyola, supra note 32 at 77.
42. People v. Calongui, G.R. No. 170566, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 76,
88.
43. Id.
44. Id. at 88-89.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/4119/print 13/13