8/12/2019 People vs. Maglantay

1/2

People of the Philippines vs. Jose Maglantay

FACTS.

On May 8, 1994, the employees at the Lowell Building went on an excursion to Lingayen,

Pangasinan where they had a grand time swimming at the beach. Upon arrival from said excursion,

complainant Lea Ubaldo and Liza Flores went to the comfort room located at the second floor of

the Lowell Building. When the two girls parted ways, Jose Maglantay blocked Lea Ubaldos way and

proceeded to kiss and drag her back upstairs. A certain Mary Ann Robencio saw them but when she

reprimanded Maglantay, the latter only responded "Huwag kang makialam kung ano man ang nangyayari

dahil diskarte ko ito",Robencio then left and informed the security guard on duty named Alfonso

Javier. Javier testified that he saw Ubaldo struggling and crying for mercy while being dragged by

Maglantay, but since he was afraid to interfere because it was too dark and the accused is drunk,

Javier decided to just call a policeman. During that time, Maglantay had already succeeded in raping

Ubaldo twice 1.) On the second floor and, 2.) Inside the comfort room where Javier and the

policeman saw them.

Maglantay invoked the sweetheart defense.

The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and convicted Maglantay.

ISSUE. WON the trial court erred in not appreciating Maglantays sweetheart defense and giving

full faith and credit on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

HELD.

Repeatedly, we have held that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are not to

be disturbed without reason by the appellate court. Having heard the witnesses and observed their

deportment personally, the trial court is in the best position to determine whether or not the

witnesses are telling the truth. Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this

respect, unless it is shown that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated

certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.

Here, we find no reason to depart from these salutary rules. The trial court in its decision finds no

plausible reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses in this case. Nor could we.

As the trial court says, the version of accused-appellant's regarding what really transpired on the

night of March 8, 1994 is hardly believable. It is evident that accused-appellant merely concocted

his "sweetheart defense" to exculpate himself from criminal liability. This is a much-abused defense

that "rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests it patience." We could not believethat two persons, even at the height of passion, would choose a comfort room instead of a more

suitable place for a sexual encounter. Even if it were true that accused-appellant and Ubaldo were

lovers, still, this was no license for accused-appellant to force himself upon Ubaldo. But accused-

appellant's claim of romance between him and Ubaldo is graphically belied by the latter's conduct

immediately after the incident. It does not make sense for Ubaldo, if she had consented to the

sexual act, to suddenly rush out of the comfort room where it happened, crying and asking for help.

8/12/2019 People vs. Maglantay

2/2