Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

4TH JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 75
San Mateo, Rizal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - Crim. Case No. 15391

FOR : Rape

FLORIN SANTIAGO y GAA

a.k.a. RENZ,
Accused.
x ----------------------------------------- x

DECISION

Accused Florin Santiago y Gaa is being charged with the crime of

Rape under paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 1-a, of Article 266-A, in relation to
first paragraph of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R.A. No. 8353 and R.A. No. 9346, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 3 rd day of September 2013, in the

Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
design, and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of MONALISA
MARCELO y AUSTRIA by inserting his penis inside her vagina, against her
will and without her consent, said act having been further qualified by
employment of a gun, a deadly weapon, which he utilized to threaten or
coerce said MONALISA MARCELO Y AUSTRIA to yield to his sexual desire
and facilitate the consummation of the act.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

When arraigned on August 13, 2014, accused pleaded not guilty.

During the Pre-Trial Conference on November 3, 2014, the prosecution
marked the following documents:
2
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

 Exhibit “A” - Sworn Statement of Monalisa A. Marcelo;

 Exhibit “A-1” - Page 2 of the Sworn Statement;
 Exhibit “A-2” - Page 3 of the Sworn Statement;
 Exhibit “B” - Initial Medico-Legal Report

The defense, on the other hand, marked the following documentary

exhibits:

 Exhibit “1” - Sworn Statement of accused Florin

Santiago y Gaa, dated October 25, 2013;
 Exhibit “1-a” - Name and signature of accused;
 Exhibit “2” - Judicial Affidavit executed by Florin G.
Santiago;
 Exhibit “2-a” - Name and signature of accused;
 Exhibit “3” - Sworn Statement of Susan G. Marmol;
 Exhibit “3-a” - Name and signature of Susan G. Marmol;
 Exhibit “4” - Judicial Affidavit of Susan G. Marmol;
 Exhibit “4-a” - Name and signature of Susan G. Marmol;
 Exhibit “5” - Judicial Affidavit executed by Thursday
Amancio; and
 Exhibit “5-a” - Name and signature of Thursday Amancio

Both the prosecution and the defense marked documentary exhibits

but reserved its right to present the same during the course of the trial.

Trial on the merits ensued in this case.

The Case for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented private complainant, Monalisa Marcelo

and her witnesses, PCI Maria Anna Lissa Dela Cruz and PO3 Janice De
Guzman, to prove its case.

MONALISA MARCELO – 22 years old, single, student and presently

residing at No. 360 Ayuson St., San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal, testified that:
3
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

“On September 3, 2013, at around 2:30 in the afternoon,

she was outside her house in Sub-Urban, San Jose, Rodriguez,
Rizal, when the accused, called her and said that he will give
her load and candy; she went to him inside the store of the
accused; the accused removed his varsity shorts, and while
pointing a gun at her, he told her that he would kill her if she
will not hold his penis; she complied because she was afraid of
him; the accused forcibly removed her shorts, including her
panties, and told her to lie down; when she was already naked,
the accused placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis
in her vagina; but since a man suddenly arrived, the accused
told her to go outside the house; she locked herself in a room;
she reported the incident to the police only on September 12,
2013 because she was afraid that she might be scolded by her
sister; because of this incident, she executed an affidavit.” (TSN
dated 18 May 2015 pp. 3-10)

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION – Monalisa Marcelo testified that:

“It was the only and first time that the accused offered her
candy and load; when she came to the store of the accused, the
latter removed his short pants and poked a gun against her;
she held the penis of the accused because the latter told her
that he would shoot her if she will not hold his penis; while
pointing a gun at her head, the accused forced her to lie down
and went on top of her, then inserted his penis three (3) times;
her sister reported the matter to the authorities.” (TSN dated 3
August 2015 pp 3-7)

PCI MARIA ANNA LISSA DELA CRUZ – 41 years old, single, Physician
and Medico Legal Officer, presently assigned at Camp Nakar, Lucena City
testified that:

“Rodriguez Police requested her to do the genital and

physical examination of the victim; thereafter, a letter/request
was entered in the Blotter of Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory
and also in the Sexual Crime Protocol of the Rizal Provincial
4
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

Crime Laboratory; after the blotter, there is a Manifestation of

Consent signed by the guardian (the one who accompanied
Monalisa Marcelo) and Monalisa Marcelo herself; after the
usual procedure f recording the request, there is a Sexual Crime
Protocol which she prepared, which contains the Case Number
of the Medico Legal Case and the personal circumstances of
the patient and the brief history of the incident which was
prepared by the complainant; after the preparation of all the
documentary papers, she proceeded with the Physical and
Genital Examination; during the Physical Examination, her
findings was there was no physical injury; however in the
Genital Examination, the hymen has presence of deep healed
lacerations at 3 and 9 o’clock positions; she explained that the
3 and 9 o’clock positions are only clock position reference
where the lacerations were noted; she further explained that
deep means the entire thickness of hymen which was
lacerated; she further added that deep healed lacerations is
estimated to heal beyond seven days; based on the
information, the alleged date of the incident was September 3,
2013, while the examination was conducted on September 11,
2013; in her conclusion, the medical evaluation showed clear
evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen which
satisfies the elements of rape.” (TSN dated 31 July 2017 pp. 3-
7)

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION – PCI Maria Anna Lissa Dela Cruz testified that:

“ She confirmed that she personally examined the patient;

however, she added that since the incident happened four
years ago and she have examined so many rape cases, she is
not anymore familiar with the face of the patient that she
examined; from the time of the alleged commission of the
offense and the time of her evaluation, there was an eight day
gap; from that eight days, she could no longer extract sperm
cells during the examination; even in consensual sexual
intercourse, there can also be laceration especially in virginial
5
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

state of the hymen, which has the same healing process.” (TSN
dated 31 July 2017 pp. 8-10)
PO3 JANICE DE GUZMAN – of legal age, married, presently assigned
at Rodriguez PNP, Rodriguez, Rizal, testified that:

“She was the Investigator of the case; she took the

statement of Monalisa Marcelo and referred her to the Crime
Laboratory for Genital Examination; at the time that she took
the statement of the victim, the latter looked fine, based on her
physical appearance, and she was also giving her answer
coherently.” (TSN dated 8 May 2017 pp. 1-4)

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION – PO3 Janice De Guzman testified that:

“She confirmed that she was the Investigating Officer in the

case; she have no personal knowledge about what happened
to the accused and the victim.” (TSN dated 8 May 2017 p. 5)

The Case for the Defense

On the other hand, the defense presented the accused Florin

Santiago and his witnesses, Thursday Amancio and Susan Marmol, and
denied the allegations in the information.

FLORIN GAA SANTIAGO – 41 years old, married, Grocery owner and

presently residing at Sub Urban, ERAP City Phase 1, L-1, Block 3, Lot 84,
Rodriguez, Rizal, testified that:

“On September 3, 2013, at around 7:00am, he was inside

his store, tending his goods; at around 9am, he went outside
his store and played pool with a certain Thursday in a nearby
pool area, which was 3-5 meters away from his store; at
around 2:00pm, he went to his other store to get supplies;
thereafter, he played pool again; a few days after, a police
officer came and invited him in the police station and took his
statement; the purpose of the invitation pertains to the
6
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

accusation that he raped his neighbour, Monalisa Marcelo; he

do not see any motive in accusing him because he is a good
neighbour.” (TSN dated 27 November 2017 pp 3-6)

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION – he testified that:

“ On September 3, 2013, he was playing pool game near his

store with Thursday, Kuya Danny, Toto, John John and Dandan;
in between games, he was also attending to his store; he
denied having seen the victim, Monalisa Marcelo, on that day;
he has known Thursday for five years but does not know the
surname; he confirmed that there was no motive for the victim
to charge him for rape nor was there disagreement or
misunderstanding with the victim nor with her family.” (TSN
dated 27 November 2017 pp. 6-8)

ON RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION – he testified that:

“According to the records, the rape was committed by force

and by pointing a gun before the victim, but he does not have a
gun and does not even know how to use one; the
complainant/victim is new to the neighbourhood; he is close to
the complainant/victim’s older sister and the latter told him
that the complainant/victim is medyo may tama sa pag-iisip;
his house is adjacent to the house of the complainant/victim;
he see her everyday when she passes by his store; she has
never bought any from his store.” (TSN dated 27 November
2017 pp. 8-11)

ON RE-CROSS EXAMINATION – he testified that:

“The older sister of the complainant/victim is Apple

Marcelo; another sister is Jamela Lazarte.” (TSN dated 27
November 2017 pp. 11-12)

THURSDAY AMANCIO – 29 years old, with live in partner, welder and

presently residing at Sub Urban, San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal, testified that:
7
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

“He knows the accused because they are neighbours; the

victim was his former neighbour; on September 3, 2013, at
around 2:30 in the afternoon, he was playing pulan with the
accused; though playing pool, the accused was also tending his
store whenever there were customers; the distance of the pool
table to the store of the accused is about 10 meters; while they
were playing, there were some customers however he did not
see the complainant/victim; they played from 12:00 noon to
6:00 in the evening; at around 6:00 in the evening, the accused
went to his other store to get some goods or merchandise;
when the accused came back, he helped him with his
merchandise; thereafter, he went home.” (TSN dated 25 April
2018 pp 3-13 )

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION – he testified that:

“He confirmed that he was playing pool with the accused on

September 3, 2018, from 12:00 noon til 6:00 in the afternoon;
they were five of them; he saw Susan Marmol at that time,
who was also present at the pool area; while playing pool, the
accused also tended to his store; he confirmed that the
distance of the store of the accused to the play pool is 10
meters; he further confirmed that there was not much
customers at that time as the accused was able to play pool at
the same time attend to his store; the usual attire of the
accused is a Jersey shorts; he described the victim as hindi
katangkaran, may pagkatomboyin; he confirmed that there is
no motive for the complainant/victim to file a case of rape
against the accused.” (TSN dated 25 April 2018 pp 13-18 )

SUSAN MARMOL – 57 years old, married, housewife and presently

residing at Block 3, Lot 85 Sub-Urban Phase I L-1, San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal.
She testified that:

“On September 3, 2013, between 2:00 – 2:30 in the

afternoon, she was manning a pool table; during those times, she
8
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

was with the five players, namely, Florin, Carding, Jojo, John John
and another person who do not live in the area;Florin, the
accused, is her neighbour and friend, who lives about three
meters away from her house; she described the house of the
accused as located in front of her pool table which is also
adjacent to her house; she described that the accused has a store
located just beside his house; considering the distance mentioned,
she can see whatever will happen inside the store of the accused
and all those happening on the premises of her pool table; on
September 3, 2013, she did not notice any untoward incident
happened on the premises; she said that the accused owns two
stores and as a usual practice, every three o’clock the accused will
leave his store which is near her house, and he would go to his
other store.” (TSN dated 23 October 2017 pp. 3-10)

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION – she testified that:

“On September 3, 2013, the accused was with four men,

playing at her pool table; during that time, the accused was not
attending to his own store; however, if there is a customer, the
accused would leave the pool table and attend to his customer;
she maintain that the store of the accused is at the right side of
his house and the distance from her pool table, which is in front
of her house, is about seven meters; she said that between
2:00 – 2:30 in the afternoon, while she was attending to her
pool table, there is a possibility that a customer arrived and the
accused attended to him or her.” (TSN dated 23 October 2017
pp. 10-12)

ON RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION – she testified that:

“She maintains that the accused was playing pool in her

pool table on September 3, 2013, between 2:00 – 2:30 in the
afternoon.” (TSN dated 23 October 2017 pp. 12-13)
9
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

THE RULING OF THE COURT

Article 266-A, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, states the
elements of the crime of rape as follows:

Article 266 A. Rape: When and How Committed. Rape is committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of

the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

xxx

We have scrutinized the records of this case and are convinced that
the accused had carnal knowledge of the private complainant with threat
and intimidation, thus, against her will and without her consent. The
private complainant categorically declared that on September 3, 2013, the
accused, while holding a gun, ordered her to hold his penis, otherwise he
would kill her. Thereafter, the accused inserted his penis into her vagina.

In the crime of rape, inasmuch as only two persons are usually

involved, it is the settled rule that the lone uncorroborated testimony of
the offended victim, so long as the testimony is clear, positive and
probable, may prove the crime as charged. (People vs. Ogarte, G.R. No.
182690, 30 May 2011 citing People vs. Campos, G.R. Nos. 133373-77, 18
September 2000)

During Monalisa Marcelo’s direct-examination, she was able to

narrate before the Court what transpired on September 3, 2013. When
asked by SAPP La Verne Jallorina, she testified:

SAPP JALLORINA:
xxx
Q : While you were just standing by outside your house on that
date and time, Madam Witness, can you recall if there was
anything unusual that happen, if any?
A : Yes, sir.
10
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

Q : So what was that?

A : Florin Santiago called me and he was going to give me a
candy, sir.

Q : Candy only?
A : Load and candy sir.

xxx
Q : When the accused called your attention and say that he will
give you load and candy, what did he do next, if any?
A : He suddenly removed his varsity shorts, sir.

Q : Meaning, Madam Witness, when he called you, you went

with him?
A : Yes, sir.

Q : So, here was he when he called you?

A : In the store, sir.

xxx
Q : So, when he called you, you went inside the store?
A : Yes, sir.

Q : So what happen next after that?

A : He pointed a gun at me, sir.

Q : What did he say if any when he pointed a gun at you?

A : If I will not hold his penis, he would kill me, sir.

xxx
Q : Did you follow his order to hold his penis?
A : Yes, sir because if I will not follow his order he will kill me

Q : So what happen next, Madam Witness after you held his

penis?
A : He told me to go inside, sir.

Q : Did you follow his order?

A : Yes, sir because there was a gun pointed at my head, sir.

xxx
Q : When you were already inside the house of the accused,
11
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

what happened next?

A : He forcibly removed my shorts and told me to lie down,
sir.

xxx
Q : After you were already naked down and lying what
happened next?
A : He placed himself on top of me and then he inserted his
penis in my vagina, sir.

(TSN dated 18 May 2015, pp 1-10)

On the part of the accused, when he testified before the Court, he

denied the accusation. When examined by his counsel, accused testified:

ATTY. MENDOZA:
Q : Mr. Witness, can you tell this Honorable Court where were
you on September 3, 2013?
A : I was inside my store, sir

Q : And what were you doing during that time, Mr. Witness?
A : I was tending my goods, sir.

xxx
Q : When you open and arrange your store is there anything
that happen thereafter, Mr. Witness?
A : I went outside my store and play pool which was outside
my store, sir

xxx
Q : Who were with you at that time, Mr. Witness?
A : Thursday, sir

xxx
Q : And what were you doing with Thursday, Mr. Witness?
A : We were playing pool, sir

xxx
Q : What happen thereafter, Mr. Witness?
A : At around 2:00pm, I went to the other store to get supply,
like softdrinks, sir
12
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

Q : What did you do next, if any, Mr. Witness?

A : I arrange the softdrinks I took from the other store,
thereafter, I played again pool, sir

Q : And then until what time did you play pool again, Mr.
Witness?
A : Until 2:30 in the afternoon, sir

Q : Did you remember anything happen thereafter, Mr.

Witness?
A : None, sir

Q : Few days after do you remember anything happen, Mr.

Witness?
A : In 2013, a police officer came and invited me and took my
statement, sir

Q : What was the purpose of that invitation from the police,

Mr. Witness?
A : I was accused of rape, sir

Q : You were accused of raping whom, Mr. Witness?

A : Monaliza Marcelo, sir

(TSN dated 27 November 2017, pp 1-5)

However, the Court is inclined to believe the victim’s version of facts

as she had clearly testified on the date, time and the circumstances of the
offense committed against her. When the victim was asked further during
her examination, she was able to testify the details of the offense.

In the case of People vs. Balino (G.R. No. 194833, 2 July 2014 citing
People vs. Dion, G.R. No. 181035, 4 July 2011), the Supreme Court ruled:

“It is settled that when the victim’s testimony is

straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and
the normal course of things, unflawed by any human nature and the
normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant
inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may
be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Inconsistencies in the
victim’s testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the
inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential
13
Crim. Case No. 15391
People vs. Florin Santiago
For : Rape
DECISION
x ------------------------------------------------- x

fact of the commission of rape. The trial court’s assessment of the

witnesses’ credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and
binding.” [Emphasis Supplied]

The Court finds that the private complainant’s testimony verily

passed the test of credibility. While the defense was able to present three
(3) witnesses – the accused himself, Thursday Amancio and Susan Marmol
– their testimonies were not able to overcome the weight of private
complainant’s testimony. The Court places more weight on private
complainant’s straightforward, convincing and consistent testimony over
the self-serving testimonies of the accused and his witnesses.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused FLORIN GAA SANTIAGO

is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under
paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 1-a, of Article 266-A, in relation to first
paragraph of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
No. 8353 and R.A. No. 9346. Accused is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION
PERPETUA, in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole, and ordered to
pay the victim the amount of ___________ as civil indemnity, _________ as
moral damages, and, __________ as exemplary damages, all with interest
at the rate of ________ per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
San Mateo, Rizal, _____________.

BEATRICE A. CAUNAN-MEDINA
Presiding Judge

Copy furnished
 OPP – SMR
 PAO – SMR
 BJMP - SMR