PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMMEL BELO G.R. No. 187075.

July 5, 2010 FACTS There are two versions of the incident. The version of the Prosecution is that on November 12, 1999, AAA, while taking a bath alone in her house, when she opened the bathroom door, she was shocked to see Belo who was holding a bread knife. Belo then pushed her inside the bathroom. While pointing the bread knife at her, he kissed and touched AAAs private parts. He also asked her to hold his penis with her left hand, and then eventually, inserted his penis into her vagina. The version of the defense is that what transpire was consensual sex and not rape. Belo claims that AAA was his girlfriend and that the first time they had sexual intercourse as was on October 1999 in her own bedroom. On November 12, 1999, AAA invited him to her house. She told him that she would not lock the door so that he could easily enter. He claims that there was no rape because of the absence of bruises and contusions on AAAs body and she was not able to present the weapon used in the commission of the rape. The incident entered in the police blotter was only Attempted Rape. However, later on, AAA claimed that the Rape was consummated. Issues: Whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellant can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether or not the testimony of the prosecutions witnesses is credible. Whether or not the evidence presented by defenses evidence.

Holding: Guilty for the Crime of Rape The collective testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses are credible while those of the accused are not credible and barren of probative weight.

Reasoning: The defense of consensual sex must be established by strong evidence. Sweetheart theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence some documentary and/or other

evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like. Other than appellants testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory The claim that the credibility of AAA should be questioned because of the incident entered in the Police blotter. Such entries are not conclusive proof of the truth for they are often incomplete and inaccurate. The claim that it is highly suspicious for AAA to leave the door of her house unlocked considering that she was alone and was about to take a bath. Such act cannot be taken as an invitation for accusedappellant to enter AAAs house as it could be plainly attributed to oversight or to the fact that it was still early in the afternoon The claim that there was no rape because of the absence of bruises and contusions on AAAs body and she was not able to present the weapon used. Such are not essential to the conviction.