PEOPLE VS SORIA
assault by inserting x x x any instrument or object,
FACTS:
- A father’s detestable act of abusing his daughter
through rape by sexual assault.
- Accused-appellant Benjamin Soria guilt of the crime
of rape committed against his daughter "AAA", of
minor age.
- "AAA" and her siblings enjoyed the spaghetti their
father (appellant) brought home for merienda. After
eating, "AAA" went to the bedroom to rest.
Thereafter, appellant also entered the room and
positioned himself on top of "AAA", took off her
clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. "AAA"
felt intense pain from her breast down to her vagina
and thus told her father that it was painful. At that
point, appellant apologized to his daughter, stood up,
and left the room. This whole incident was witnessed
by "AAA’s" brother, "BBB".
- RTC: Simple Rape
- CA: Simple Rape
- Appellant asserts that he should be acquitted of the
crime of rape since there is no evidence that would
establish the fact of sexual intercourse. Aside from
the prosecution’s failure to prove penile contact,
"AAA’s" testimony was also wanting in details as to
how he took off her underwear or whether she saw
his penis during the incident despite leading
questions propounded on the matter by the
prosecution. The medical report even revealed that
"AAA’s" hymen remained intact and that there were
no notable lacerations or external physical injuries
thereon. Appellant therefore surmises that his wife
merely instigated "AAA" to file this baseless rape
case against him in retaliation for his act of
confronting her about her illicit relationship with a
neighbor.
HELD:
- Rape can now be committed either through sexual
intercourse or by sexual assault
- There must be proof that his penis touched the labia
of "AAA" or slid into her female organ, and not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, to
ensure his conviction of rape by sexual intercourse.
- "AAA" stated that she only knew that it was the
"bird" of her father which was inserted into her
vagina after being told by her brother "BBB". Clearly,
"AAA" has no personal knowledge that it was
appellant’s penis which touched her labia and
inserted into her vagina. Hence, it would be
erroneous to conclude that there was penile contact
based solely on the declaration of "AAA’s" brother,
"BBB", which declaration was hearsay due to "BBB’s"
failure to testify
- Instead, we find appellant guilty of rape by sexual
assault. It cannot be denied that appellant inserted
an object into "AAA’s" female organ. "AAA"
categorically testified that appellant inserted
something into her vagina. She claimed to have
suffered tremendous pain during the insertion. The
insertion even caused her vagina to bleed
necessitating her examination at the hospital. Both
the trial court and the CA found "AAA’s" testimony to
be credible. We find no compelling reason not to lend
credence to the same.
- This defilement constitutes rape under paragraph 2
of Article 266-A of the RPC, which provides that rape
by sexual assault is committed "by any person who,
under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
into the genital or anal orifice of another person."
PEOPLE VS ORITA
FACTS:
- Accused, Ceilito Orita alias Lito, was charged with the
crime of rape
- Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman
student at Eastern Samar.
- Complainant arrived at her boarding house. Her
classmates had just brought her home from a party
- All of a sudden, somebody held her and poked a knife
to her neck. She then recognized appellant who was
a frequent visitor of another boarder
- She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered
her to go upstairs with him. Since the door which led
to the first floor was locked from the inside, appellant
forced complainant to use the back door leading to
the second floor
- With his left arm wrapped around her neck and his
right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, appellant
dragged complainant up the stairs
- When they reached the second floor, he commanded
her to look for a room. With the Batangas knife still
poked to her neck, they entered complainant's room.
- He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then
mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert
it in her vagina. She followed his order as he
continued to poke the knife to her. At said position,
however, appellant could not fully penetrate her.
Only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept on
moving. In this position, only a small part again of his
penis was inserted into her vagina. At this stage,
appellant had both his hands flat on the floor.
Complainant thought of escaping
- She dashed out to the next room and locked herself
in. Appellant pursued her and climbed the partition.
When she saw him inside the room, she ran to
another room. Appellant again chased her. She fled
to another room and jumped out through a window
- Whether or not the accused's conviction for
frustrated rape is proper.
HELD:
- The requisites of a frustrated felony are: (1) that the
offender has performed all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony and (2) that the
felony is not produced due to causes independent of
the perpetrator's will.
- Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he
actually attains his purpose and, from that moment
also all the essential elements of the offense have
been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done
by the offender, because he has performed the last
act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony
is consummated.
- Because not all acts of execution was performed. The
offender merely commenced the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the
nature, elements and manner of execution of the
crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is
hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape
can ever be committed.
PEOPLE VS MANGALINO
FACTS
 - Marichelle Carlos, 6 years old
- was playing "takbuhan" alone at the first level
(ground floor) of the two-story apartment of the
accused, Semion Mangalino, 53
- Semion called Marichelle to go inside the room. The
accused handed the girl a two peso bill (P2.00)5 and
told her not to tell anybody about his calling her to
his bedroom. The girl assented.
- Accused then laid Marichelle down, removed her
jogging pants, and placed them beside her feet. He
kissed her and fondled her infantile breasts. He
inserted his finger into the private part of the victim,
and then forcibly and repeatedly introduced his
sexual organ into her undeveloped genitalia, but in
vain.
- Marichelle narrated to her mother what had
happened, saying, "Si Mang Semion nilagay ang daliri
niya sa pikpik ko," and "yong titi ni Mang Semion
nilagay sa pikpik ko."
HELD:
- Accused is guilty of statutory rape
- Marichelle, a little over 6 years of age at the time,
was raped. Beyond that, proof of intimidation or force
used on her, or lack of it, is immaterial.
- The heart of the matter is the violation of a child's
incapacity to discern evil from good. As the behavior
of the victim towards the accused during the
commission of the crime and her testimony before
police officers and in the court indicate, she had no
awareness of the wrongfulness of the action of the
accused who was old enough to be her grandfather.
Her willingness to lie down on and accept the P2.00
given her by the accused, whom she looked up to as
an elder person, a neighbor, and a friend of her
family, indicate not naivete, but the absolute trust
and confidence of the very young in an older person.
She was incapable of reading malice or evil in his
intentions. It is likely that it was only when she saw
how distraught her mother was at her telling of her
story and the flurry of police and judicial activity
stirred up by her narration that her young and
innocent mind was violently exposed to the reality of
the existence of evil in the hearts of men. The
moment of truth, dawning so violently upon young
and innocent minds is contemptible. The older
persons in the community should set themselves up
as models of proper decorum and high moral purpose
for young children; it is they who should guide the
young, teach them, and nurture them in the way of
the righteous. A 53-year-old man who instead
corrupts and violates the purity and dignity of a
minor is morally depraved and should be punished to
the limits of the law.
PEOPLE VS ERINIA
FACTS:
- Victim of the crime was a child of 3 years and 11
months old and the evidence is conclusive that the
defendant endeavored to have carnal intercourse
with her, but there may be some doubt whether he
succeeded in penetrating the vagina before being
disturbed by the timely intervention of the mother
and the sister of the child.
- The mother of the child testified that she found its
genital organ covered with a sticky substance, but
that cannot be considered conclusive evidence of
penetration.
- penetration was impossible
- the crime of rape consequently was impossible of
consummation; and that, therefore, the offense
committed should be treated only as abusos
deshonestos.
HELD:
- It is probably true that a complete penetration was
impossible, but such penetration is not essential to
the commission of the crime; it is sufficient if there is
a penetration of the labia
- The effect that her labia of the privates of a child of
that age can be entered by a man's male organ to
the hymen and the defendant was found guilty of the
consummated crime rape.
- There being no conclusive evidence of penetration of
the genital organ of the offended party, the
defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and
can only be found guilty of frustrated rape, but in
view of the fact that he was living in the house of the
parents of the child as their guest, the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence existed and the
penalty must therefore be imposed in its maximum
degree.
PEOPLE VS CASTRO
FACTS:
- Accused, Delfin Castro, guilty statutory rape defined
under Art. 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal
Code.
- 6 years old Diana Rose Castro narrated how, while
playing with a neighbor
- Accused is a first cousin of Diana Rose's mother.
- accused, then put up her clothes, took off her panty,
made her lean on the wall and, despite her efforts to
pull away he inserted his private part into her
causing pain. Then she was told by the accused to go
home. At home, she refused to have her private part
washed by her Auntie Alice because it was hurting
and painful.
HELD:
- The victim being of tender age, the penetration of
the male organ could go only as deep as the labia. In
any case, for rape to be committed, full penetration
is not required. It is enough that there is proof of
entrance of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ. Even the slightest
penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of
rape.
- Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina are not essential for the
offense of consummated rape. Entry, to the least
extent, of the labia or lips of the female organ is
sufficient. Diana's remaining a virgin does not negate
rape.
- Sexual intercourse in a standing position, while
perhaps uncomfortable, is not improbable
PEOPLE VS ATENTO
FACTS:
- complainant is Glenda Aringo, who was sixteen years
old at the time of the alleged offense. She is the
neighbor of Cesar Atento, the herein accused-
appellant, a 39-year old store-keeper with a wife and
eight children
- Her parents were at work and Atento was alone in his
house except for his three-year old daughter. Glenda
 claims Atento cajoled her into coming inside the
house and then took her downstairs, where he
succeeded in deflowering her. She says her maiden
head ached and bled. Afterwards, he gave her P5.00.
- she felt tickled by his manhood and described the act
of coitus as "masarap."
- The girl says she never told anybody about Atento's
attacks on her because he had threatened her life.
But she could not conceal her condition for long and
after five months had to admit she was pregnant.
She revealed the accused-appellant as the father of
the foetus in her womb
- Glenda's description of the act of coitus as
pleasurable would have destroyed the whole case
against Atento but for one singular significant fact.
The girl is a mental retardate.
HELD:
- Atento employed force or threat against Glenda to
make her submit to his lust. Nevertheless, there is no
question that Atento is guilty of rape upon Glenda
under paragraph 2, because the girl was deprived of
reason. Alternatively, he is liable under paragraph 3,
because his victim had the mentality of a girl less
than twelve years old at the time she was raped.
- The deprivation of reason need not be complete.
Mental abnormality or deficiency is enough.
Cohabitation with a feeble-minded, idiotic woman is
rape.
- Given the low I.Q. of Glenda, it is impossible to
believe that she could have fabricated her charges
against the accused. In any event, whether under
paragraph 2 or under paragraph 3 of Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code, the accused-appellant
deserves to be punished for the rape of Glenda
Azingo.
PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN
FACTTS:
- Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year
old Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from the second
floor of their house to prepare Milo chocolate drinks
for her two (2) children. At the ground floor she met
Primo Campuhan who was then busy filling small
plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the
freezer located at the second floor. Primo was a
helper of Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon. As
Corazon was busy preparing the drinks, she heard
one of her daughters cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" 7
prompting Corazon to rush upstairs. Thereupon, she
saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room
kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging
pants" and panty were already removed, while his
short pants were down to his knees.
- Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel's vagina.
Horrified, she cursed the accused, "P - t ng ina mo,
anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. He
evaded her blows and pulled up his pants. He pushed
Corazon aside when she tried to block his path.
Corazon then ran out and shouted for help thus
prompting her brother, a cousin and an uncle who
were living within their compound, to chase the
accused
HELD:
- Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply
mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of
organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the
external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons
pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the
labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely
stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused
to be convicted of consummated rape
- Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or
touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not
sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent
any showing of the slightest penetration of the
female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the
pudendum by the penis, there can be no
consummated rape; at most, it can only be
attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
- she did not feel any intense pain but just felt "not
happy" about what Primo did to her, Thus, she only
shouted "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko, aray ko!"
- In cases where penetration was not fully established,
the Court had anchored its conclusion that rape
nevertheless was consummated on the victim's
testimony that she felt pain, or the medico-legal
finding of discoloration in the inner lips of the vagina,
or the labia minora was already gaping with redness,
or the hymenal tags were no longer visible.
- Rape is attempted when the offender commences
the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the crime of rape by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. All the elements of attempted rape —
and only of attempted rape — are present in the
instant case, hence, the accused should be punished
only for it.
PEOPLE VS AARON
FACTS:
- appellant, Emmanuel Aaron y Dizon, was charged
with three counts of rape defined and penalized
under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code
- Jona Grajo, was asleep in bed (papag) inside her
room on the second floor of the apartment unit which
she shared with her sister and her brother-in-law,
herein appellant Emmanuel Aaron
- Jona was wearing only a panty and was covered with
a blanket. Sensing that someone was inside her
room, Jona opened her eyes and was surprised to
find Emmanuel sitting beside her in bed totally
naked. Emmanuel immediately went on top of Jona
and poked a knife on her neck. Jonas attempt to cry
for help proved futile as Emmanuel quickly covered
her mouth with his left hand.
- Emmanuel removed her panty and succeeded in
having carnal intercourse with Jona who could only
manage to cry. Subsequently, Emmanuel withdrew
his penis and ordered Jona to lie down on the floor.
He inserted his penis into her vagina for the second
time with the knife still poked on Jonas neck.
Thereafter, Emmanuel stood up and commanded
Jona to lie down near the headboard of the papag
bed where he inserted his penis into her vagina for
the third time, still armed with a knife, and continued
making pumping motions (umiindayog).
HELD:
- It may appear from the facts that the appellant thrice
succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part
of Jona Grajo. However, the three penetrations
occurred during one continuing act of rape in which
 the appellant was obviously motivated by a single
criminal intent.
- There is no indication in the records, as the trial court
correctly observed, from which it can be inferred that
the appellant decided to commit those separate and
distinct acts of sexual assault other than his lustful
desire to change positions inside the room where the
crime was committed.
PEOPLE VS LUCENA
FACTS:
- AAA, who was then 17 years old, walking and
chatting with her friends along one of the streets of
San Dionisio, Parañaque City, two (2) barangay
tanods, one of whom is the appellant, approached
and informed them that they were being arrested for
violating a city ordinance imposing curfew against
minors.
- AAA was then brought by the two (2) barangay
tanods within the vicinity of the San Dionisio
Barangay Hall. Afterwards, one of them alighted from
the tricycle and went inside the barangay hall. The
appellant, on the other hand, stayed in the tricycle to
guard AAA. After a while, the barangay tanod, the
one who went inside the barangay hall, returned.
But, the appellant told the former that he will just be
the one to bring AAA back to her house. But, instead
of escorting AAA back to her house, the appellant
brought her to Kabuboy Bridge
- He subsequently pointed a gun at AAA and
commanded her to lie down and to take off her
clothes. The appellant later put the gun down on the
ground and inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina
despite the latter’s plea not to rape her. Satisfied,
the appellant stopped. But, after a short while, or
after about five (5) minutes, the appellant, once
again, inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina.
Thereafter, he stopped. On the third time, the
appellant inserted again his penis into AAA’s vagina.
Fulfilling his bestial desire, the appellant stopped and
finally ordered AAA to dress up. The appellant even
threatened AAA that he would kill her should she tell
anyone about what happened between them.
HELD:
- The said three (3) penetrations happened one after
another at an interval of five (5) minutes, wherein
the appellant would take a rest after satiating his lust
and after regaining his strength would again rape
AAA. Undoubtedly, the appellant decided to commit
those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault on
AAA. Thus, his conviction for three (3) counts of rape
is irrefutable
- While it is true that the appellant had already put the
gun down on the ground the moment he inserted his
penis into AAA’s vagina and was actually unarmed on
those three (3) episodes of sexual intercourse, the
same does not necessarily take away the fear of
being killed that had already been instilled in the
mind of AAA. Emphasis must be given to the fact that
the gun was still within appellant’s reach, therefore,
he could still make good of his threat on AAA at
anytime the latter would show any resistance to his
evil desires. AAA’s lack of physical resistance,
therefore, is understandable and would not in any
way discredit her testimony
- It appears from the facts that the [appellant] thrice
succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part
of [AAA]. The three (3) penetrations occurred one
after the other at an interval of five (5) minutes
wherein the [appellant] would rest after satiating his
lust upon his victim and, after he has regained his
strength, he would again rape [AAA]. Hence, it can be
clearly inferred from the foregoing that when the
[appellant] decided to commit those separate and
distinct acts of sexual assault upon [AAA], he was not
motivated by a single impulse[,] but rather by
several criminal intent. Hence, his conviction for
three (3) counts of rape is indubitable.
PEOPLE VS CATAYTAY
FACTS:
- BBB (AAA’s mother) testified that she knew accused-
appellant Cataytay as her neighbor in their
compound in Mandaluyong City. Accused-appellant
was a shoe repairman who had a shop six houses
away from BBB’s house.
- BBB left AAA in their house to look for BBB’s
youngest daughter. Thirty minutes later, when she
reached the bridge near Block 37, her neighbor, Lito,
told her that there was a problem, and brought her to
the barangay outpost. AAA and the accused
appellant were already at the outpost. Lito told the
persons at the outpost that she was the mother of
the victim. When BBB saw AAA, the latter told her,
"Mommy, nirape po ako." BBB asked her who raped
her. AAA responded by pointing to accused-
appellant. During the interviews made by the
barangay officials, AAA narrated howshe was raped
by accused appellant, which ended when a certain
"Mimi" knocked at the door. When accused-appellant
answered the knock, Mimi told the former that she
will shout if he does not leave the house. AAA went
out of the house and sought help from their
neighbors. One of their neighbors, Amelita Morante,
called the barangay officials at the outpost.
HELD:
- The term demented refers to a person who has
dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated
mentality, characterized by marked decline from the
individual's former intellectual level and often by
emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the
other hand, the phrase deprived of reason under
paragraph 1 (b) has been interpreted to include
those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency,
or retardation. Thus, AAA, who was clinically
diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can be properly
classified as a person who is “deprived of reason,”
and not one who is “demented.”
- In the case at bar, AAA was clinically diagnosed to
have mental retardation with the mental capacity of
a seven-year old child. The prosecution and the
defense agreed to stipulate on the conclusion of the
psychologist that the “mental age of the victim
whose chronological age at the time of the
commission of the offense is nineteen (19) years old
x x x is that of a seven (7) year old child.” Accused-
appellant is therefore criminally liable for rape under
paragraph 1(b) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code.
PEOPLE VS AMARELA
FACTS:
- [AAA] is single, a housekeeper and a resident of
Davao City.
- [AAA] testified that on February 10, 2009, at around
6:00 o’clock in the evening, she was watching a
beauty contest with her aunt at a basketball court
where a make-shift stage was put up. The only lights
available were those coming from the vehicles
around.
- She had the urge to urinate so she went to the
comfort room beside the building of the Maligatong
Cooperative near the basketball court. She was not
able to reach the comfort room because Amarela
suddenly pulled her towards the day care center. She
was shocked and was no match to the strength of
Amarela who pulled her under the stage of the day
care center. He punched her in the abdomen which
rendered her weak. Then Amarela undressed her.
She tried to resist him but he was stronger. He boxed
her upper thigh and she felt numb. He placed himself
on top of her and inserted his penis inside her vagina
and made a push and pull movement.
- She shouted for help and then three men came to
her rescue [so] Amarela fled.
- The three persons brought her to a hut. But they
closed the hut and had bad intentions with her. So
she fled and hid in a neighboring house. She was
brought to the Racho residence and herein accused
Racho was told by his mother to bring her to her
aunt’s house instead.
- [AAA] said that [Racho] brought her to a shanty along
the way against her will. She was told to lie down.
When she refused, [Racho] boxed her abdomen and
she felt sick. She resisted by kicking him but he
succeeded in undressing her. He, then, undressed
himself and placed himself on top of [AAA]. [Racho]
then inserted his penis into [AAA]’s vagina. After
consummating the act, [Racho] left her. So [AAA]
went home alone.
HELD:
- This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor.
And while the factual setting back then would have
been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to
be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we
simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype
of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We,
should stay away from such mindset and accept the
realities of a woman’s dynamic role in society today;
she who has over the years transformed into a strong
and confidently intelligent and beautiful person,
willing to fight for her rights.
- In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a
private complainant of rape without gender bias or
cultural misconception. It is important to weed out
these unnecessary notions because an accused may
be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim,
provided of course, that the testimony is credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. Thus, in
order for us to affirm a conviction for rape, we must
believe beyond reasonable doubt the version of
events narrated by the victim.
- In this case, however, the version in AAA’s affidavit-
complaint is remotely different from her court
testimony. At the first instance, AAA claims that she
was pulled away from the vicinity of the stage; later,
in court, she says that she was on her way to the rest
room when she was grabbed. By this alone, we are
hesitant to believe AAA’s retraction because it goes
into whether it was even possible for Amarela to
abduct AAA against her will.
- If we were to take into account AAA’s initial claim
that Amarela pulled her away from the vicinity of the
stage, people facing the stage would easily notice
that a man was holding a woman against her will.
Thus, AAA’s version that she was on her way to the
rest room, instead of being pulled away from the
crowd watching the beauty contest, would make it
seem that nobody would notice if AAA was being
taken away against her will. If indeed AAA was on her
way to the rest room when she was grabbed by
Amarela, why does her sworn statement reflect
another story that differs from her court testimony?
To our mind, AAA’s testimony could have been
concocted to just make her story believable rather
than sticking to her original story that Amarela
introduced himself and pulled her away from the
stage. We cannot say that this inconsistency is
simply a minor detail because it casts some doubt as
to whether AAA was telling the truth – that she was
abducted against her will before she was raped.
- Although we cannot acquit Amarela solely based on
an inconsistency, this instance already puts AAA’s
credibility in question. Again, we must remember
that if we were to convict based solely on the lone
testimony of the victim, her testimony must be clear,
straightforward, convincing, and consistent with
human experience. We must set a high standard in
evaluating the credibility of the testimony of a victim
who is not a minor and is mentally capable.
- Second, we also find it dubious how AAA was able to
identify Amarela considering that the whole incident
allegedly happened in a dark place. In fact, she had
testified that the place was not illuminated and that
she did not see Amarela’s face
- From AAA’s testimony, we are unsure whether she
was able to see Amarela given the lighting conditions
in the crime scene. In her re-direct examination, AAA
clarified that she identified Amarela while she was
being pulled to the day care center. Even so, the
prosecution failed to clarify as to how she was able to
do so when, according to AAA herself, the way to the
day care center was dark and covered by trees. Thus,
leaving this material detail unexplained, we again
draw reservations from AAA’s testimony.
- In the end, what needs to be stressed here is that a
conviction in a criminal case must be supported by
proof beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty
that the accused is guilty.45 Absolute guarantee of
guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a person
of a criminal charge but there must, at least, be
moral certainty on each element essential to
constitute the offense and on the responsibility of the
offender.46 Thus, the prosecution has the primordial
duty to present its case with clarity and persuasion,
to the end that conviction becomes the only logical
and inevitable conclusion.
- The prosecution in this case miserably failed to
present a clear story of what transpired. Whether
AAA's ill-fated story is true or not, by seeking relief
for an alleged crime, the prosecution must do its part
to convince the court that the accused is guilty.
Prosecutors are given ample resources of the
government to present a logical and realistic account
of every alleged crime, and they should, to the best
of their ability, present a detailed story to get a
conviction. But here we cannot ascertain what
happened based on the lone testimony of AAA. It
should have been the prosecution's duty to properly
 evaluate the evidence if it had enough to convict
Amarela or Racho.
PEOPLE VS CLARO
FACTS:
- AAA, a housemaid, received a text message from the
accused asking if they could meet. He was then
working as a security guard near AAA's place of work.
AAA accepted his invitation and met with him on
Augusto San+ Francisco Street, Sta. Ana, Manila,
where they boarded a passenger jeepney bound for
Rizal A venue in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Arriving in Sta.
Cruz, they entered a Jollibee restaurant on Rizal
Avenue and ordered food. They later on went to a
nearby house, later identified as the Aroma Motel.
She refused to go up the stairs of the motel, which
impelled him to hold her by the hand and pull her
upstairs, insisting that they would only talk and eat.
He then talked to a male attendant who ushered
them into a room.
- accused closed the door and pushed her towards the
bed. She still attempted to leave but the door was
locked. He pulled her back to the bed, telling her that
he loved her. Instead of responding to him, she said
that she needed to go to the toilet
- the accused barged inside the toilet and again pulled
her back to the bed. He forcefully undressed her
completely, went on top of her, and forcibly inserted
his penis inside her vagina. She kept on punching to
try to stop him, but to no avail. After he was done,
she immediately put on her clothes and left the
room. But she was compelled to ride with him in the
same passenger jeepney because she did not know
her way back.
- Did the RTC and the CA correctly find and pronounce
the accused guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt?
HELD:
- NO. In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to
acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt. Reasonable doubt is defined as the state of
the case which, after the entire comparison and
consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of
jurors in such a condition that they cannot say they
feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the
truth of the charge.
- Although she claimed that he had held her by the
hand and pulled her upstairs, there is no evidence
showing that she resisted in that whole time, or
exhibited a reluctance to enter the motel with him.
Instead, she appeared to have walked with him
towards the motel, and to have entered it without
hesitation. What she did not do was eloquent proof of
her consent.
- Moreover, the mere presence of abrasions and
contusions on her did not preclude the giving of her
consent to the sexual intercourse, for abrasions and
contusions could also be suffered during voluntary
submission of the partners to each other's lust. Such
possibility calls for us to open our minds to the
conclusion that the sexual intercourse resulted from
consensuality between them.
- Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
necessarily means that mere suspicion of the guilt of
the accused, no matter how strong, should not sway
judgment against him. Without the proof of his guilt
being beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused
herein was not overcome. His acquittal should follow.
- The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the
presumptions of law independent of evidence are in
favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to
be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such
proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the
accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal.
For it is not sufficient to establish a probability,
though a strong one arising from the doctrine of
chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be
true than the contrary; but the evidence must
establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and
moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and
directs the understanding and satisfies the reason
and judgment of those who are bound to act
conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof
beyond reasonable doubt; because if the law, which
mostly depends upon considerations of a moral
nature, should go further than this, and require
absolute certainty, it would exclude circumstantial
evidence altogether.
PEOPLE VS JOSE DALAN
FACTS:
- (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman,
and (2) he accomplished such act through force or
intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12
years of age or was demented.3 Carnal knowledge of
a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under
Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended
- Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a
mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a
sexual act. What need to be proven are the facts of
sexual congress between the accused and the victim,
and the mental retardation of the latter.
HELD:
- The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape, as
provided for in Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, is the carnal
knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. To
convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the
prosecution must prove: first, the age of the
complainant; second, the identity of the accused;
and last but not the least, the carnal knowledge
between the accused and the complainant.
- In the present case, it is not disputed that AAA was
already 17 years old when she was raped
- Carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with
the mental age below 12 years of ageis considered
as rape of a woman deprived of reason
- Statutory rape should only be confined to situations
where the victim of rape is a person less than 12
years of age. If the victim of rape is a person with
mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation, the
crime committed is simple rape under Article 266-A,
paragraph (1)(b) as she is considered "deprived of
reason" notwithstanding that her mental age is
equivalent to that of a person under 12.