SARABIA VS PEOPLE (2001)

Petitioner: Guillermo Sarabia

Respondent: People of the Philippines

Petition for Review of CA Decision

FACTS:
● June 23, 1991, 8:00 pm:
o Complainant Josephine Picos-Mapalad and her then boyfriend (now husband),
complainant Anastacio Mapalad were on a date at one of the grandstands inside
the Garcia Sports Complex, when they were approached by petitioner
o He focused his flashlight on them; at gunpoint, he then asked the two
complainants to perform sexual acts against their will; afterwards, he
extorted Php 100 from the two, and asked Mapalad to buy cigarettes for
him; while Mapalad was gone, he asked Picos-Mapalad to masturbate him
o Afterwards, he allowed the two complainants to leave with the threat that he will
kill them if they tell anyone
● Despite these threats, three informations for grave coercion were filed by the
complainants against the petitioner
● Sarabia’s version of the story:
o Vehemently denied the accusations, and claimed that he merely approached the
two to warn them that the place was dangerous; upon his warnings,
Picos-Mapalad screamed at him and the two refused to leave
o Not wanting an altercation, he simply left and headed home
● The Tagbilaran MTC rendered a decision in favor of complainants; Sarabia was
sentenced to suffer 6 months of arresto mayor, and to pay a Php 500 fine
● This decision was affirmed by both the Bohol RTC and the CA

ISSUE AND HELD:

● WoN the CA erred in affirming Sarabia’s conviction. NO.
o Sarabia argued:
▪ Complainants’ testimonies are replete with contradictions which put their
credibility in serious doubt; that under the principle of falsus in uno, falsus
in omnibus, inasmuch as the complainants lied and contradicted their
statements many times, it is safe to conclude that they also lied about
their other statements to the prejudice of petitioner
▪ The fact that complainants did not report the incident to the authorities
right away when they had every opportunity to do so; story was entirely
fabricated to make him pay for having investigated Picos-Mapalad’s
brother in an earlier case
o SC ruled:
▪ When a conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment
of the trial court is accorded the highest degree of respect, should not be
disturbed without any compelling reason to do so; The testimonial
 discrepancies mentioned by the petitioner are irrelevant ones which tend
to strengthen, rather than weaken, credibility as they erase any suspicion
of rehearsed testimony; when complainants testified, more than four
years had elapsed from the time the incident in question took place;
memory lapses therefore are understandable
▪ The petitioner is a figure of authority, while the two complainants are
both unschooled teenagers at that time; it needs no stretch of the
imagination that when he threatened to kill the two if they reported the
incident,they entirely and utterly believed that he would make good on his
promise
o Sarabia argued:
▪ Present action would cause double jeopardy since the incident which
gave rise to the case at hand is also the subject of another criminal case
for robbery with violence or intimidation against persons
o SC ruled:
▪ To raise the defense of double or second jeopardy, the following elements
must be present:
● A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
● The first jeopardy must have terminated
● The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the
first.
▪ Third element is not present; the charge in this present case is not the
same, nor is an attempt to commit or a frustration thereof, nor does it
necessarily include or is included in, the charge for robbery