People vs.

Siao
Date promulgated: March 3, 2000
Nature of case: APPEAL from a decision of the Cebu City RTC
Ponente: J. Gonzaga-Reyes
Facts:
Rene Siao and Reylan Gimena were charged with the crime of rape. They allegedly raped 14-year
old Ester/Estrella Raymundo on May 27, 1994. On March 29, 1996, RTC rendered the ff. verdict:
o Siao convicted of rape as principal by induction; penalty of reclusion perpetua; ordered to
indemnify Ester P50,000.00 in moral damages.
o Gimena acquitted because he was acting under impulse of uncontrollable fear of an
equal/greater injury
Cast of characters
o Rene Siao son of Jose Siao, owner of the house in which the crime occurred; employer of
Reylan Gimena and Ester Raymundo
o Ester Raymundo housemaid of Siao family
o Reylan Gimena helper of Siao family
There are two versions of the story: that of 1) Ester/Gimena and 2) Siao. The court believed the
former.
o Ester/Gimenas version
3 PM: Siao ordered Gimena to pull Ester into the womens room.
Once inside, Siao pushed her to the bed. Siao pointed a gun at Gimena and Ester.
Siao asked Ester to choose among a pistol, candle or bottle of Sprite. She chose
Sprite. Siao lit candle and dropped melting wax on Esters chest + poured Sprite into
her nostrils.
FIRST SEXUAL ACT: ORAL SEX. Siao tied her hands and feet with electric cord/wire
as she lay face down on the bed. He made her undress herself and ordered her to
suck Gimenas penis at gunpoint.
SECOND SEXUAL ACT: MISSIONARY STYLE. Siao ordered Gimena to get on top of
her. Gimena made push-and-pull movements for 10 minutes (Why did it take
you long to penetrate?) while Siao held her legs to keep them apart.
THIRD SEXUAL ACT: SIDE BY SIDE. Despite their protestations of exhaustion,
Gimena and Ester were made to lie side by side. Gimena, who was behind Ester,
made push-and-pull movements so that his organ would reach her private part.
FOURTH SEXUAL ACT: DOGGY STYLE. Despite their protestations of exhaustion,
Gimena and Ester were forced to do it doggy style.
Gimena shouted for help. Somebody knocked on the door. They heard the voice of
Teresita Paares, Siaos older sister. But Siao ignored her and kept on pointing the
gun at Gimena and Ester. He told them to go to the boys room. They complied with
his order tearfully, after he followed them laughing all the while. He warned them: If
you will tell the police, I will kill your mothers.
6 PM: Ester and her cousin, Joy, also a housemaid of the Siao family, asked
permission to go home. On their way home, they met an old man who saw Ester
crying. He took them to his house and the incident as reported to the police. The
police investigated and arrested Gimena. They couldnt locate Siao.
o Siaos version
MORNING: Teresita was awakened by a commotion in the house. Gimena was
accusing Ester of stealing his wristwatch. This wasnt the first time hed accused her
of stealing his watch. Earlier in the week, there had been more thefts: Teresita lost
P1,300.00; her daughter lost a necklace; other helpers lost personal articles. Until the
employment of the Raymundo cousins, the Siaos had not fallen victim to thievery.
NOONTIME: After returning from his morning chores, Gimena asked Teresita whether
his watch had been found. When she said no, he confronted Ester, who offered to pay
for the value of the watch instead. Joy agreed to accompany Gimena to her and
Esters aunt for financial assistance. But they returned an hour later and told Teresita
that the aunt couldnt/didnt help them.
Ester admitted to Teresita that shed stolen Teresitas money (P1,300.00) but not the
necklace. Ester returned a total of P800 to Teresita, but she could no longer produce
the rest of the money because shed already spent it on personal effects.

Gimena and Ester went to the boys room. Shortly thereafter, Gimena came out and
announced that hed recovered his watchEster had showed him where shed hidden
it (under the ironing board).
There were lots of people there: Jose Siao (dad of Rene and Teresita), Beatriz
Baricuatro, Joy, Teresita, Joses grandchildren
3 PM: To solve the case of the missing necklace, Teresita left the compound and
returned within the hour accompanied by Barangay Tanod Arturo Jabines. Ester
begged for forgiveness and promised not to steal again. She admitted to stealing the
necklace. But Teresita wasnt satisfied. She started to bring Ester to the barangay hall
to report the theft, but en route, Ester confessed and begged for forgiveness, so
Teresita decided to give her a second chance.
Back at the compound, Ester and Joy asked Beatrizs permission to return to their
home in Leyte. She said yes and even gave money for boat fare.
6 PM: Ester and Joy left the Siao residence with all their belongings.
7 PM: Some people came to the house looking for Ester and Joy.
What was Rene Siao, the accused, doing all this time? Morning: made the rounds
collecting the obligations of his fathers creditors. Noontime: went to Joses store and
had lunch with his wife Gina.
9 PM: A barangay tanod came to the store and invited Gimena to the barangay hall.
At the barngay hall, upon the complaint of Rosalie Sallentes (claimed to be related to
Ester and Joy), Barangay Captain George Rama asked Gimena re: Ester and Joys
whereabouts. He didnt know. Eventually, he confessed that he had tied Ester up to
force her to reveal where shed hidden his watch. He untied her after he recovered
his watch from under the ironing board.
NEXT DAY: Gimena was picked up by police at the store and brought to the police
station.
NOTE: neither the police nor the barangay tanod looked for Siao on May 27 and 28.
JUNE 21, 1994: Ester filed a complaint against Siao and Gimena.
After case was filed but before trial commenced, a person claiming to be Esters
father met with the Siaos, demanding P1M from them to drop the case.
TRIAL COURTS DECISION: Siao guilty of rape as principal by induction; Gimena acquitted
Siao appealed
SUPREME COURTS DECISION: trial courts decision upheld; Siaos claims dismissed
Agreed with trial courts observation: The court cannot believe that a 14-year
old girl who is a stranger in the city will vent her ire on Rene Siao. If Rene
Siao were to be believed that he did not confront Ester about the latters
act of committing the crime of theft, why would Ester take revenge on Rene
Siao? The court cannot believe that this 14-year old probinsyana will
concoct a story so as to do damage against business men like Jose Siao,
Beatriz Baricuatro and Rene Siao. As a matter of fact, filing a case in court
would mean untold misery and inconvenience. It will expose her to shame.
She mustered enough courage if only to make the truth prevail. She
ventured to assume the role of David against Goliath.
Siaos claim #1: prosecutions failure to present the gun used by Siao to force
and intimidate Ester and Gimena is fatal to the prosecutions cause.
o Rebuttal: People vs. Travero the non-presentation of the weapon used
in the commission of the rape is not essential to the conviction of the
accused. It suffices that the testimony of the rape victim is credible
because the established rule is that the sole testimony of the offended
party is sufficient to sustain the accuseds conviction if it rings the
truth or is otherwise credible
o The testimony of Ester and Gimena were assessed by the trial court to
be credible. Unless certain facts of substance and value were
overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its
assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe
the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect
if they are lying.
Siaos claim #2: the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of
Ester and Gimena despite being fraught with substantial inconsistencies.

o
o
o

Rebuttal: it can be readily seen that the alleged inconsistencies are

inconsequential considering that they refer to trivial matters which
have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of rape
carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.
Inconsistencies on minor details of the testimonies of witnesses
serve to strengthen their credibility as they are badges of truth
rather than an indicia of falsehood. If at all, they serve as proof
that they witnesses were not coached and rehearsed.
Siaos claim #3: Ester and Gimenas testimonies dont conform to common
experience (e.g. Gimena ejaculated 3x in less than 30 minutes; rape took
place within earshot and near presence of other people, including a barangay
tanod; Ester and Gimena didnt try to escape in the 10 minutes it took for Siao
to follow them from womens to the boys room; Ester reported the incident to
an old man she chanced upon on her way home)
o Rebuttal:
Ejaculation the important consideration in rape is not the
emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia
by the male organ
Within earshot and near presence of other people lust is no
respecter of time and place
No attempt to escape considering their ages (14 and 17) and
low position (household help), they were easily intimidated and
cowed into submission, especially since Siao was their employer
and had a gun; also, not all victims flee from their aggressors
some become virtually catatonic because of the mental shock
Reported incident to old man no one else to turn to
SENTENCE: RTC decision AFFIRMED (reclusion perpetua + civil liability of P50,000 indemnity)
with MODIFICATION (P50,000 moral damages + P20,000 exemplary damages)
Rape was committed AFTER the effectivity of R.A. 7659 on December 31, 19993. The
governing law, Art. 335 of the RPC, as amended, imposes the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, if committed with the use of a deadly weapon.
RTC overlooked aggravating circumstance of ignominy (accused in committing
the rape used not only the missionary position, but also the dog position) Use of deadly weapon serves to increase the penalty. But said fact should be
alleged in the information, due to the accuseds right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. Since the complaint (later
converted into Information) failed to allege the use of a deadly weapon, the
penalty to be reckoned with in determining the penalty for rape would be
reclusion perpetua, the penalty prescribed for simple rape single indivisible
penalty which must be applied regardless of any mitigating/aggravating
circumstances.
TC erred in ordering Siao to pay only indemnity (civil liability arising from the
offense) of P50,000. Siao should also pay moral damages (automatically
granted in rape cases without need of any proof; fixed at P50,000) and
exemplary damages (presence of 1 aggravating circumstance justifies the
award of exemplary damages pursuant to Art. 2230 of the Civil Code)
o