a flashlight, directing its beam towards AAA and appellant.
After satisfying himself, appellant turned to Toto and said, "Bord ikaw pod" (You
also). Toto then approached AAA and began to mount her, bit AAA's lips, but could
not consummate as Toto held back when AAA parried him with her arms and legs,
and he was not able to remove his short pants.
Unsatiated with the first rape, appellant dragged AAA down by her arms, and while
AAA was in a sitting position, appellant grabbed her head and put his penis inside
her mouth while AAA attempted to shake her head sideways. Afterwards, appellant
again inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina and started a pumping motion.
AAA also testified that as appellant and Toto were about to leave, appellant warned
AAA and her children that if they told her husband or anyone else about the
incident, they would harm or kill them, including AAA's husband.
AAA's husband arrived at about seven in the morning of the next day, and AAA
reported to him what happened. That same day, they went to the barangay captain
to seek assistance, but the latter was somewhere else. The day after, they reported
the sexual assault to the police. x x x
xxxx
The second daughter BBB, who was then 8 years old at the time of the alleged rape
and already 10 years old when she testified, was also presented to corroborate the
account given by her mother AAA. x x x[9]
Version of the Appellant
In his defense, appellant testified that he was accompanied by his cousin, Toto, to
AAA's house and that he had sexual intercourse with AAA twice on the said date.[10]
However, he claimed that the sexual intercourse were consensual and pre-arranged
as they had an ongoing relationship for more than one year.[11] He further testified
that prior to that incident, he had sexual intercourse with AAA on at least ten (10)
occasions.[12] He also denied encouraging Toto to have sexual intercourse with
AAA.[13]
To support the "sweetheart theory," the defense presented witness Dennis U. Taan
(Dennis), a friend of appellant, who testified that appellant and AAA had gone to his
house twice; that they requested to stay in one of his rooms to rest; that he did not
see what happened inside the room as it was covered by a curtain; and that he was
surprised to hear about the charges against appellant because according to
appellant, he and AAA had an ongoing relationship.[14]