After the incident, Udang went out to report for duty as barangay tanod while AAA remained inside his house as she
was still too weak to move.[11]
One (1) year and three (3) months after, in December 2003, AAA, who by then was already 13 years old, again had
some drinks at Udang's house. This time, she was with Bienvinido, Jr. and Udang himself. When AAA felt sleepy, she
went into one (1) of the rooms inside the house.[12] While AAA was lying in bed, Udang, who had followed her into the
room, went on top of her, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina until he ejaculated. [13] After having
sexual intercourse with AAA, Udang went out to report for duty as barangay tanod. AAA, too tired, remained lying in
bed.[14]
On April 14, 2004, AAA had herself physically examined by Dr. Revelo at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center in
Cagayan de Oro City. Dr. Revelo found that AAA had hymenal lacerations in the 4, 7, and 10 o'clock positions, [15] as
well as "excoriations" or reddish superficial scratched marks between her thighs and genitalia.[16] According to Dr.
Revelo, these lacerations "could have been caused by trauma, frictions, infections, and also sexual
intercourse."[17] Although in AAA's case, the hymenal lacerations were old and already healed. [18]
The defense presented as witnesses Udang and his daughter, Betty. Monera Gandawali (Gandawali) and Emirald
Orcales (Orcales), fellow inmates of AAA at the Cagayan de Oro City Jail, also testified in Udang's defense. Their
testimonies proved the following version of the facts.
Udang's daughter, Betty, denied drinking with AAA in September 2002. She also belied the claim that her father,
Udang, and her brother, Bienvinido, Jr., had drinks with AAA in December 2003. However, she alleged that AAA once
went to their house to invite her to sniff some rugby, an offer which she refused. She maintained that AAA only
wanted to get back at her father for having AAA arrested after she was caught grappling with Betty's grandmother
because the latter tried to stop AAA from sniffing rugby inside Udang's house. [19]
After Udang caused the arrest of AAA for sniffing rugby,[20] AAA was detained at the Cagayan de Oro City Jail where
she, Gandawali and Orcales became fellow inmates.[21]
Gandawali testified that sometime in 2007, she had the chance to talk to AAA when the latter became anxious for
receiving a subpoena to testify in the cases she filed against Udang. During their conversation, AAA disclosed that
she was never actually raped by Udang and that it was actually her stepfather who wanted to implicate him.[22]
For her part, Orcales testified that she did not know Udang personally. She claimed that she only knew Udang when
AAA divulged her desire to write to Udang and ask for his forgiveness. AAA likewise disclosed to Orcales that it was
not Udang but a security guard who had raped her and that it was AAA's mother who had forced her to testify against
Udang in retaliation for her arrest for sniffing rugby.[23]
In his defense, Udang denied ever raping AAA. He testified that he was at home with his mother and other siblings at
the time of the alleged incident in September 2002. As for the alleged second incident in December 2003, Udang
claimed that he was again at home with his mother and siblings, Susan Udang and Cito Udang. He asserted that at
9:00 p.m., he reported for duty as barangay tanod with his colleagues, Ruel Labis and Carlo Banianon. Udang saw
no reason for AAA to falsely charge him with rape since no animosity existed between them. [24]
Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City found for the prosecution and convicted Udang of rape under
Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code,[25] instead of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
7610.[26] It ratiocinated that while the allegations in the first and second Informations satisfied the elements of rape
under the first and third paragraphs of Article 266-A, respectively, the charges can only be one (1) for rape under the
first paragraph of Article 266-A because "[an] accused cannot be prosecuted twice for a single criminal act."[27]
The trial court found that the prosecution "indubitably established" [28] Udang's act of raping AAA since she
"categorically narrated"[29] how he took advantage of her while she was intoxicated and that had she resisted his
advances, she would be mauled by Betty. That AAA was raped was also supported by Dr. Revelo's finding of
hymenal lacerations and excoriations on AAA's thighs and genitalia.[30]
The trial court did not give credence to Udang's defense of denial and alibi, stating that he could have requested his
family members and fellow barangay tanods, who were allegedly with him at the time of the incidents, to corroborate
his testimony but that he failed to do so. Without the corroborating testimony of these alleged companions, his
testimony was, for the trial court, "self-serving and unworthy to be believed."[31]
The trial court likewise discounted Gandawali's and Orcales' testimonies for being hearsay.[32] As for Betty, the trial
court found her testimony "bare"[33] and "unsupported by evidence."[34]
In the Regional Trial Court March 12, 2012 Joint Decision,[35] Udang was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua on both counts of rape under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. He was also
ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The dispositive portion of this Decision
read:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered[,] judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused BIENVINIDO
UDANG y SEVILLA:
1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, Par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code in FC-Criminal Case No. 2006-140 and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion