PEOPLE VS MORENO

FACTS: Before us for automatic review1 is the

Decision2 of 9 August 1999 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 138, Makati City, in Criminal Case
No.99-026 finding accused-appellant Rogelio Moreno
y Reg (hereafter ROGELIO) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with
rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
death and to pay the amounts of P200,000 as moral
damages and P1,000 representing the value of the
personal property taken from the victim Marites Felix
(hereafter MARITES). The victim, 20-year-old
MARITES, testified that at about 12:45 A.M. of 8
January 1999, as she was walking along ABC
Commercial Complex, Makati, after her duty as
service crew of the Burger Machine outlet located at
Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati, she noticed a man behind
her. Suddenly, the man put his arms around her and
pointed a fan-knife at her neck. Since the place was
illuminated by streetlights and lights coming from the
ABC Commercial Complex, MARITES noticed the
tattoos in his arms and recognized him to be
accused-appellant ROGELIO. Prior to 8 January 1999,
ROGELIO would pass by their Burger Machine outlet
twice a week, but there was never an occasion that
he bought something from Burger Machine.4
ROGELIO dragged MARITES and at the same time
ordered her to follow him to the side of ABC Complex,
which is about five arms-length away from EDSA.
MARITES removed her ring from her bag and gave it
to ROGELIO.5The latter told her, "Mamaya na
iyan."6 "[T]hat will come later on because I will give
it back to you but you have to follow me first."7
ROGELIO grabbed MARITESs long-sleeved shirt,
unbuttoned it, and pushed her to the vacant space
behind the car then parked on the side of ABC
Complex. He again pointed his knife at her throat and
pulled down her pants. To her plea for mercy, he
replied "Huwag kang maingay, kundi papatayin kita."
ROGELIO then removed his pants and again uttered
"Huwag kang maingay kundi sasaksakin kita." Still,
she told him that he could get her bag if he needed
money, but he replied, "I do not need money."8
ROGELIO ordered MARITES to open her legs apart or
else he would kill her. MARITES was forced to obey
him. ROGELIO then went on top of her with his right

hand holding her throat, inserted his sexual organ

into hers, and kept on pumping. After he was
through, ROGELIO went again on top of MARITES and
ordered her to put his organ inside her vagina.
MARITES said, "Ayoko." At this point, she heard
someone nearby running. ROGELIO forthwith put on
his shorts and snatched the shoulder bag of
MARITES, which contained her ATM card, P200 cash,
a small Bible, coupons of Burger Machine and T-shirt
with Burger Machine markings. He then ran away
towards the direction of the other side of EDSA.9
The vendors who saw MARITES crying as she was
walking inquired about what happened to her. They
brought her back to the Burger Machine outlet and
called the police. MARITES joined the police in the
search for ROGELIO around the vicinity and to the
place where the incident happened. One of the two
policemen saw her ring in said place. They continued
to search the vicinity until they reached Laperal
Compound. As they were approaching Guadalupe
Bridge, several persons who were talking to each
other scampered away upon seeing MARITES and the
police officers. One of them was ROGELIO, who
immediately went inside a house and turned off its
lights. With the assistance of the barangay tanod, the
police went to the back portion of the house and saw
ROGELIO, who at the time was wearing a hat and a
blue jacket with his head bowed down.10
Upon seeing ROGELIO, MARITES exclaimed: "He is
the one." ROGELIO refused to remove his hat when
she tried to remove it. After finally succeeding in
removing his hat, MARITES confirmed: "He [was] the
one who raped me." She then removed his jacket and
saw under it her T-shirt with Burger Machine prints at
the left sleeve and catsup stains in the front and
upper parts of the shirt. This was the shirt she used
in working at their Burger Machine outlet.11
The police brought ROGELIO and MARITES to the
police station where MARITES was investigated. At
9:00 A.M. of the following day, MARITES was
examined by Dr. Aurea P. Villena, a medico-legal
officer of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI).12
Dr. Aurea P. Villena testified that she conducted an
examination on MARITES and found that MARITES

sustained contusions on her breasts. She also noted

the following:
2) Hymen, intact but distensible and its orifice wide
(2.5 cm in diameter) as to allow complete
penetration of an average-sized adult Filipino male
organ in full erection without producing any genital
injury;
3) Semenology - positive for human spermatozoa
which is highly indicative of recent sexual intercourse
with [a] man.13
SPO3 Quillano Molmisa of the Makati Police Station
corroborated the testimony of MARITES that upon
receiving her complaint for rape, he, together with
the latter and SPO4 Alejandro Alisangco, proceeded
to the Laperal Compound in Guadalupe, which was
known to the police officers as a hiding place of
criminals in that area. ROGELIO ran away upon
seeing MARITES and the police officers. ROGELIO was
later found hiding in a kneeling position in Laperal
Compound. MARITES was hysterical as she positively
identified ROGELIO. SPO3 Molmisa brought ROGELIO
to the Ospital ng Makati for medical examination
before bringing him to the police station.14
Accused-appellant ROGELIO, 19 years old and a
resident of Laperal Compound, Guadalupe Viejo,
Makati City, put up the defense of alibi. He testified
that on or about 12:45 A.M. of 8 January 1999, he
was sleeping in a folding bed located outside the
house owned by his uncle, with whom he had been
living. ROGELIO was roused from sleep by the police.
MARITES approached him, took off his hat and was
hysterical when she pointed to him saying, "Iyan nga
po iyon, iyan nga po iyon." "Ikaw ang nangholdap sa
akin at nang rape." Then the policemen tied his
hands and brought him to the Ospital ng Makati,
together with MARITES.15
ROGELIO did not deny the fact that he was wearing a
T-shirt with Burger Machine prints at the time of his
arrest. According to him it had been with him for
almost a year prior to the incident. It was given to
him as a souvenir by a friend who worked at the
Burger Machine.16
Zaldy Carino, a 17-year-old neighbor and friend of
ROGELIO for three years prior to the incident,

testified that between 5:00 and 8:00 P.M. of 7 January

1999 he was playing basketball with ROGELIO and
the latters friends. ROGELIO was wearing a Burger
Machine T-shirt the whole time that they were
playing basketball. After winning the game, ROGELIO
bought some merienda for his playmates, since he
was the one who placed the bet. They stayed in
ROGELIOs house until about 10:00 P.M. when
ROGELIO told them that he was going to sleep. After
Zaldy and his friends left, ROGELIO slept in a folding
bed located outside the house of his uncle.17
Between 2:00 and 3:00 A.M. of the following day,
Zaldy was awakened when he heard noises. He went
out of the house and went to the place where the
noise was coming from. He found out that it came
from the place where ROGELIO was sleeping, and he
saw ROGELIO being beaten up by four persons,
including a barangay tanod.Zaldy also saw MARITES
shouting, crying and claiming that the T-shirt worn by
ROGELIO was hers. ROGELIO and another person by
the name of Inteng were taken away.18
After evaluating the evidence offered by the parties,
the trial court gave full faith and credit to the version
of the prosecution, convicted ROGELIO of robbery
with rape and appreciated against him the
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. It
disregarded ROGELIOs defenses of denial and alibi in
view of his positive identification by MARITES as her
assailant. Accordingly, in its Decision of 9 August
1999, the trial court decreed as follows:
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the Court finds accused
Rogelio Moreno y Reg, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of having committed the special complex
crime of robbery with rape, defined and penalized
under Articles 293 and 294 of the Revised Penal Code
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Applying
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, considering the
attendance of the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity and absent any mitigating circumstance,
the Court imposes the penalty of death upon said
accused. Accused is ordered to pay the
complainant P200,000.00 as and for moral damages
plus P1,000.00 representing the value of the personal
properties taken but not recovered.19

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused committed a

separate crime of rape and theft, or special complex
crime of robbery with rape.
HELD: We cannot, however, sustain ROGELIOs
conviction of robbery with rape.
The special complex crime of robbery with rape
defined in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
employs the clause "when the robbery shall have
been accompanied with rape." In other words, to be
liable for such crime, the offender must have the
intent to take the personal property of another under
circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery,
and such intent must precede the rape.23If the
original plan was to commit rape, but the accused
after committing the rape also committed robbery
when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery
should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime.24
A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this
case convinces us that ROGELIO committed two
separate offenses of rape and theft, and not the
special complex crime of robbery with rape.
Immediately after ROGELIO put his arms around
MARITES and directed the knife at her neck, he
dragged MARITES to the vacant space in ABC
Commercial Complex and removed her clothes.
These acts clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind
sexual gratification. This intent was further
established by the fact that when MARITES offered to
give her ring to ROGELIO, the latter did not take it
and instead replied, "Mamaya na iyan"25; "That will
come later on because I will give it back to you but
you have to follow me first."26 Again, when ROGELIO
removed his pants, MARITES told him to get her bag
if he needed money; but ROGELIO replied "I do not
need money."27 After giving vent to his lustful desire,
he snatched the victims shoulder bag, which was
then on her right foot, and then he ran
away.28 Clearly then, the taking of personal property
was not the original evil plan of ROGELIO. It was an
afterthought following the rape.
Significantly, the constitutive element of violence or
intimidation against persons in robbery was not
present at the time of the snatching of the shoulder
bag of MARITES. The force or intimidation exerted by
ROGELIO against the victim was for a reason foreign

to the fact of the taking of the bag.29 It was for the

purpose of accomplishing his lustful desire. Hence, it
cannot be considered for the purpose of classifying
the crime as robbery. Accused-appellant may thus be
held liable for simple theft only, in addition to the
crime of rape
PEOPLE VS DAVID
FACTS: Before us is an appeal from the decision,
[1]
dated February 6, 1995, of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, in
Criminal Case Nos. 91-4009 to 11, convicting herein
appellant Darwin David and his co-accused Joselito V.
Sugalan of the crime of rape as defined and
penalized by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
On February 5, 1991, 14-year-old Agnes Thomas was
in front of her employers house in Moonwalk,
Paraaque when Richard Gacer and a certain Ricky
approached and invited her to attend a party later
that night. They agreed to meet at a nearby
vulcanizing shop. Agnes knew Richard as he used to
deliver bread in the neighborhood.
At about 9:00 p.m. that evening, Agnes and her
friend Pogi (the brother of Ricky) met with Richard
and Ricky at the designated place. Thereafter, they
proceeded to the house of Joselito Sugalan in
Sto.Nio St., San Agustin Village, Paraaque. Upon
reaching the place, Agnes asked where the party was
but no one answered her. She asked to go home but
Richard and Joselito prevented her from leaving. Only
brothers Ricky and Pogi were allowed to leave.
Agnes was then led to the sala (the
victim referred to this portion of the house as the
terrace), after which Richard, Joselito and
Darwin David, whom she saw for the first time,
conferred with one another. A few minutes later,
Joselito entered the sala and offered Agnes a bottle
of beer. When she refused to drink, Joselito poked a
fan knife at her and forced her to consume most of
its contents. After Joselito left, Richard came in and
started to undress her. She tried to resist but by
then she was starting to feel dizzy. Before losing
consciousness, she felt that Richard was already on
top of her. When she regained consciousness, she
found herself naked and Richard was gone. Instead,
she was alone with Darwin who poked a knife at her
and forced her to sit down. Then he took his turn

raping her. She saw blood oozing from her private

part even before Darwin could insert his penis.
Agnes could only cry in pain after having been
ravished twice. After Darwin left, Joselito came in and
asked her masarap ba? Then, he raped her too.
While the whole incident was taking place, Joselitos
mother, grandmother, brother and cousin were in a
room inside the house.
Subsequently, Agnes heard Joselito arguing
with Darwin as to who would take responsibility for
their acts. The following day, Joselito told his mother
that Agnes would be staying with them. Joselitos
mother asked her if she wanted to marry her son but
Agnes refused. Nevertheless, she stayed with the
Sugalan family for about two months during which
Joselito made her a sex slave. She complained about
Joselitos physical abuses but Joselitos mother who
was herself afraid of her son, advised her to endure
her suffering. She was never allowed to go out
alone. In one instance, she attempted to escape
when she attended mass with the Sugalan family but
Joselitos mother prevented her from doing so.
On April 5, 1991, Agnes succeeded in fleeing from
the Sugalan residence after Joselito physically
maltreated and threatened to kill her. From
Paraaque, she proceeded to her Auntie Fe in
Malibay, PasayCity. She told her aunt that she came
from work and that she met an accident in Baclaran.
It took her more than a month before she could
muster the courage to reveal what really happened,
because of fear of the Sugalans. Accompanied by her
aunt, she reported the incident to the police
authorities and subjected herself to a medical
examination.
The examination report on Agnes Thomas, prepared
by Dr. Roberto Simbalon, Jr., NBI medico-legal officer,
showed the following: (1) there were no extra-genital
injuries at the time of the examination; (2) a healed
laceration was found compatible with the date of the
first alleged rape and (3) there were signs of
probable pregnancy. Dr. Simbalon concluded that,
under normal circumstances, the healed laceration of
the hymen was caused by sexual intercourse.

Darwin and Joselito denied the charges against

them. Joselito, 20 years old and single, claimed that
he met Agnes on January 22, 1991 in
a peryahan. She became his girlfriend and live-in
partner fromJanuary 29, 1991 up to the first week of
April 1991. They stayed in Paraaque with Joselitos
mother, grandmother, brother and sister. He
considered her as his wife and the rest of the family
treated her very well. To prove his claim, he
presented three pictures of Agnes with handwritten
notes indicating her birthday and a list of some of the
clothes she left in their house.
Joselito alleged that in the evening of February 5,
1991, he and Agnes slept in their room. Sometime in
March, they had an argument because of her
jealousy. He slapped her, prompting the latter to
leave the house and file the present charge against
him.
Joselito further said that he and his childhood friend,
Darwin David, were members of a fraternity called
NAKAJEDU or NK but denied having known their coaccused Richard Gacer.
Julieta Valdez, Joselitos mother, testified that her son
and Agnes lived together as husband and wife in
her house since January 29, 1991 up to the first week
of April 1991. She met Agnes for the first time in the
early morning of January 30, 1991. Upon learning
that Agnes wanted to live with Joselito, she asked her
if she wanted to marry him but the former replied
that she was too young and that she was afraid of
her aunt.
Darwin testified, in essence, that on February 5,
1991, he was with his girlfriend (now his wife)
from 6:00 p.m. up to about 12:30 midnight. He came
to know Agnes only through his friend Joselito.
After a thorough evaluation of the evidence, the trial
court convicted Darwin and Joselito of rape and
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The
dispositive portion of its decision read:
WHEREFORE, and in consideration of all the
foregoing, the
Court finds both accused, Joselito Sugalan and
Darwin David, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
of the crime of Rape and hereby sentences each of

them to suffer an imprisonment of Reclusion

Perpetua, and to jointly and severally indemnify the
offended party of the (sic) sum of P50,000.00 as
moral damages.
The lower court ruled against the 3 accused , Darwin
and joselito were convicted while Richard gracer
remains at large.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred and the
contention of respondent herein to some
contradictory statement of the victim regarding the
allege rape and timeline when the victim decided to
go to the proper authorities.
RULING:
In the case of People vs. Arafiles,[8] we ruled that
protracted examination of a young girl, not
accustomed to a public trial, can produce
contradictions which are insufficient to destroy her
credibility. On the contrary, they may in fact serve as
badges of truth, indicating that the witness was
unrehearsed.
Appellant contends that the absence of extra-genital
injuries on the victim was contrary to her testimony
that she had been constantly subjected to physical
brutality from February 5, 1991 until her escape
onApril 5, 1991.
We do not agree. The absence of any extra-genital
injuries on Agnes Thomas was explained by the fact
that Dr. Simbalon physically examined her only
on June 14, 1991 or more than four months after she
was raped. Moreover, while there were no extragenital injuries on the victim, Dr. Simbalon
nonetheless found a healed laceration in her vagina
and signs of probable pregnancy.[9] These
circumstances were consistent with her allegation
that she was raped on February 5, 1991.
Appellant likewise disputes the presence of drugs in
the beer that was given to the victim, arguing that
the record did not support this fact. Our ruling
in People vs. Del Rosario[10] squarely applies:
True, there was no test conducted to determine the
presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given
to the victims which caused them to lose momentary
control of their faculties. But this is of little

consequence as the same is not an indispensable

element in a prosecution of rape. Under the
circumstances, it suffices that the victim was found
to have been unconscious at the time the offender
had carnal knowledge of her. (underlining ours)
Appellant insists that he cannot be held guilty of rape
because there was no real struggle or determined
effort on the part of the victim to resist. She did not
even shout for help or create any disturbance which
could have roused the other occupants of the house.
We are not persuaded. Rape is perpetrated when the
accused has carnal knowledge of the victim through
the use of force or intimidation.[11] Agnes testified
that before she was sexually abused, the three
accused brandished a knife at her and threatened to
kill her if she did not give in to their lustful desires.
The act of holding a knife, by itself, is strongly
suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and
threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to
bring her to submission.[12] As stated in the case
of People vs. Paranzo:[13]
The Court has repeatedly held that rape is committed
when intimidation is used on the victim and the latter
submitted against her will because of fear for her life
or personal safety. It is not necessary that the force
or intimidation employed be so great or of such
character as could not be resisted because all that is
required is that it be sufficient to consummate the
purpose that the accused had in mind.
The failure of the victim to shout for help or resist the
sexual advances of the rapists was not tantamount to
consent. Physical resistance need not be established
in rape when threats and intimidation are employed,
and the victim submits herself to her attackers
because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not
the sole test to determine whether a woman
involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused.
[14]
Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may
offer strong resistance while others may be too
intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[15] Here, the
victim categorically testified that she was cowed into
submission because appellant pointed a knife at her
and threatened to kill her. Moreover, she was too
helpless to resist the molestation as she was dizzy
and weak because of the beer she was forced to
drink.

Finally, appellant questions Agnes credibility for

reporting the incident only after more than a month
from the time she arrived at her aunts place, when
she could no longer hide her pregnancy.
The Court has consistently held that delay in
reporting rape because of threats of physical
violence should not be taken against the victim. A
rape victim is oftentimes controlled by fear rather
than reason. It is through fear, springing from the
initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a
feeling of extreme psychological terror which will, he
hopes, numb his victim to silence and submission.
[16]
The present case of Agnes is no exception. She
was physically abused and constantly threatened
with death by Joselito. A girl merely 14 years old
when she was sexually assaulted could not be
expected to act like an adult with the courage and
intelligence to disregard a threat to her life. We note
that the only reason for the victims prolonged stay
in the Sugalan residence was the continued presence
of Joselitos relatives who were watching her and
preventing her from leaving.
Appellants defense of alibi cannot prevail over
Agnes unwavering positive identification of him as
one of her abusers and tormentors. He failed to
establish the impossibility of his presence at the
scene of the crime. He merely claimed that, at the
time of the alleged rape, he was with his girlfriend
(Glenda Mendoza, now his wife) in her house
until midnight. While Glenda executed an affidavit,
nothing was mentioned therein to corroborate
appellants declaration that they were together at
the time the rape of Agnes took place. For his alibi to
prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was
not at the scene of the crime but that it was
physically impossible for him to be there.[17] It was
not physically impossible for the appellant to be at
the crime scene considering that his house was
within walking distance from that of Joselito.
Likewise, the defense failed to show any ill motive on
the part of the victim to falsely implicate appellant in
a very serious case. As we have said in a number of
cases, no woman will concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private part and expose
herself to the stigma and humiliation of a public trial
if she is not motivated by an earnest desire to seek
justice against the one who defiled her.

PEOPLE VS CABALQUINTO
FACTS:
Because of the paramount interest of a victim of
rape ( 8yrs. Old) it is decided that the full text will not
be published . This case presents an opportunity for
the Court not only to once again dispense due
requital for the sufferings of a child who has been
defiled by her own father, but also to effectuate the
provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610),
otherwise known as the Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, and its implementing rules, RA
9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004, and its
implementing rules, and our own Rule on Violence
Against Women and their Children.1
ABC testified that she is the common-law wife of
Cabalquinto and that they have four children,
namely: BBB, CCC, the child-victim AAA, and DDD. At
around 8:45 p.m. of November 13, 1998, she was on
her way home to xxx, and saw her sons BBB and CCC
outside the house, and her youngest daughter DDD
playing with a cousin. As she was approaching the
house, she noticed that the door was closed although
the lights were on. Since there is a half-inch gap
between the door and the wall, she peeped through
the gap and saw Cabalquinto lying face down making
pumping motions on their daughter, AAA, who was
lying underneath him with her panties pulled down.
When she heard Cabalquinto tell AAA to open her
legs ("ibuka mo"), she kicked and pounded the door.
Cabalquinto immediately lay down. AAA then stood
up and opened the door. ABC entered the room and
confronted Cabalquinto who only denied her
accusation. She then asked AAA what her father did
to her. AAA did not say anything but looked pale. 17
After regaining her composure, she went to her
sister-in-law EEE, who lived on the second floor of the
house, and confided to the latter. At around 10:00
o'clock that night, she went to her sister's house in
xxx to seek advice. Her sister told her to report the
matter to the barangay officials. The barangay
officials, in turn, told her to go to the police which
she did the following day, November 14, 1998.18

AAA's Salaysay was taken by the police and they

were referred to the CPU of PGH. Because there was
no doctor on duty, she and AAA returned to the CPU
on November 16, 1998. AAA was examined by a
doctor and a medical certificate was issued. They
returned to the police station where she executed
her Salaysay. They then proceeded to the fiscal's
office to lodge a complaint.19
ABC further testified that during the police
investigation on November 14, 1998, AAA revealed
to the police that a similar incident happened to her
on November 8, 1998, the day of her friend's
birthday celebration.20
AAA testified that at around 8:45 p.m. on November
13, 1998, she was inside their house in xxx, with her
father, Cabalquinto, when the latter instructed her to
close the door and windows and turn off the light.
She obeyed but did not turn off the light. Her father
then told her to lie down and immediately placed
himself on top of her. He then undressed her, brought
out his penis, asked her to masturbate him and to
suck his penis, inserted his penis in her private parts
and licked her private parts. He told her not to tell
her ninang DDD or her mother; otherwise, he would
kill them all. She felt pain in her stomach and pelvis
after the incident.21
Corroborating her mother's testimony, AAA stated
that while they were at the police station, she
disclosed that she was also raped by her father on
November 8, 1998. She remembered the incident
because it was the day her friend, FFF, celebrated
her birthday. According to AAA, her father had been
drinking that night. When she went home to drink
water, she was called by her father, told to close the
door and windows and to turn off the lights. She
obeyed but did not turn off the lights. Her father then
placed himself on top of her and told her to
masturbate him.22
AAA further testified that she was not enrolled in
school because her mother had been abroad. 23
It should be mentioned that in her Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated November 14, 1998, AAA stated that
her father had raped her seven (7) times since her
mother left for abroad. She said that she distinctly
remembered having been raped by her father on

November 8, 1998, her friend's birthday; August 16,

1998 during the fiesta; and on November 13, 1998,
the day before her statement was taken. However,
she said no longer remembered the exact dates of
the other incidents.24
Dr. Manalo, who conducted the physical examination
of AAA, testified that AAA had no injury on her
genitalia; that her hymen is quite large and
distensible possibly because of penile penetration;
and that she recovered a strand of pubic hair inside
AAA's vaginal vault which could only have reached
the area as a consequence of penile penetration
because AAA did not have pubic hair yet.25
On cross-examination, Dr. Manalo stated that she did
not find any traces of bleeding in AAA's vagina but
that injury is uncommon in incestuous rape
Cabakquinto denied all the allegations Cabalquinto's
claim that there are material inconsistencies
between the testimonies of AAA and ABC with regard
to whether AAA cried out as she was being raped
because while AAA testified that she shouted twice,
ABC stated that she did not see AAA struggle nor
hear her call out, is unconvincing.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of Cabalquinto
will raise sufficient ground for him to be aquitted
from conviction of rape.
RULING: AAA was firm and unwavering in her
narration of her traumatic experience. During cross
examination, she remained steadfast in her assertion
that her father inserted his penis inside her genitals
and raped her, even demonstrating what she
understood of the word rape by forming a circle with
her fingers and moving her middle finger inside and
out indicating sexual intercourse.29

The testimony of [AAA] was even more bolstered by

the consistency of her declaration under cross by the
defense counsel, Atty. Torralba of the Public
Attorney's Office, whose attempt to discredit [AAA]'s
accusation by making it appear that she would not
have known how to testify that she was raped by her
own father, had she not been coached by someone
else to say so, miserably failed. In the following
portions of [AAA]'s cross-examination by the
Defense, instead of destroying [AAA]'s credibility the
more that it was established that accused indeed
raped her (sic) daughter.
xxxx
[AAA]'s declaration that she was raped corroborates
the testimony of the doctor who testified that a
strand of hair was found inside [AAA]'s vaginal vault.
The doctor's testimony that the presence of a strand
of hair inside the vaginal vault would not be possible
without sexual intercourse, bolsters the accusation of
[AAA] that she had been raped. Of course, there is no
test to determine whose hair was it, but considering
[AAA]'s testimony that accused had carnal
knowledge of her twice prior to examination, a
conclusion that the hair is accused's is plausible. The
idea that that hair was purposely placed inside
[AAA]'s vagina would be absurdity. Thus, when [AAA]
pointed to her father as the person who molested
her, this Court can only believe because no daughter
in [AAA]'s age would accuse her own father of any
wrongdoing, if it is not for the fact that he had
wronged her, and that hair (pubic or not) is
accused's.30

Thus, the trial court gave full credence to AAA's

testimony and ruled:

ABC's testimony of what she witnessed regarding the

act of rape corroborates AAA's account. The
inconsistency between the testimony of AAA and her
mother pertains merely to a circumstance that is of
little consequence to the question of whether rape
was actually committed. Whether AAA cried out or
not does not discount rape.

From the testimony of the principal witness, [AAA]

alone, viz, the testimony of the accused, there is no
reason to doubt that accused has [sic] molested his
daughter, and had carnal knowledge of her, on two
occasions, nighttime on November 8 and 13, 1998,
when [AAA] was then only 8 years old, inside their
dwelling.

It should be emphasized that AAA was but eight (8)

years old when the rapes happened. A child of her
tender years cannot be expected to be able to
recount the details of her torment with exactitude.
In People v. Villar,31 the accused questioned the
inconsistency between the victim's declaration in her
sworn statement and her direct testimony in court as

to the exact time when she was first raped by the

accused in 1993.32 The Court held that it cannot
impose the burden of exactness in the victim's
recollection of her harrowing experience more so
because the victim was an innocent and tender nine
(9)-year old lass when she was first
raped.33 Citing People v. Sagucio,34 we also held that
errorless testimony cannot be expected especially
when a witness is recounting the details of a
harrowing experience.
On the other hand, ABC must have also been so
devastated by what she witnessed her husband
doing to their daughter that she might have
perceived things differently from AAA.
Persons who witness an event may perceive it from
different points of reference, hence they may have
different accounts of how the incident took place.
What is important is that their testimonies reinforce
each other on the essential facts and that their
versions corroborate and substantially coincide with
each other to make a consistent and coherent
whole.35 The fact therefore that the statements of
AAA and ABC differ on some minor details does not in
any way affect their credibility or detract from the
integrity and truthfulness of their declarations. The
variations in their testimonies present a believable
narration of what actually happened, made more so
precisely because of their imperfections
It is improbable that a victim of tender years,
especially one unexposed to the ways of the world as
AAA must have been, would impute a crime as
serious as rape to her own father if it were not true.
There is no doubt in our minds that AAA was impelled
solely by a desire to let justice find its way.37
As regards ABC, we are convinced that she did not
expose AAA to the ignominy that rape victims must
face only to get back at Cabalquinto's brother. Had
that been her motive, she would have accused
Cabalquinto's brother and not Cabalquinto himself.
No mother would possibly wish to stamp her child
falsely with the stigma that follows a rape only for
the purpose of punishing someone against whom she
has no grudge whatsoever.38 ABC's zeal in
prosecuting this case demonstrates to us her
yearning that the law may do her daughter justice

even as her own father had so depravedly wronged

her.
Further, the contemporaneous and subsequent
conduct of mother and child are revealing of the
veracity of the rape charge. It should be emphasized
that upon witnessing the outrage done to her
daughter, ABC immediately confronted Cabalquinto.
Shortly afterwards, she confided to her sister-in-law
and traveled all the way to xxx to seek her own
sister's advice. The following day, mother and child
went to the police to report the incident and to
execute their sworn statements. ABC also took her
daughter to the CPU of PGH for the latter's medical
examination.
These significant circumstances cannot be ignored.
We are compelled to believe, especially in the face of
Cabalquinto's plain denial, that AAA was indeed
sexually abused and raped by her own father.
Carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age
is rape as defined under Art. 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, and is qualified when the offender is a
parent of the victim, in which case, the death penalty
shall be imposed as provided under the Death
Penalty Law.39 In this case, the qualifying
circumstances of the victim's minority and her
relationship with the accused as the latter's daughter
were properly alleged in the Informations, proven
during trial and not refuted by Cabalquinto. However,
in view of Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the
imposition of the death penalty, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole
should instead be imposed.
PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN
FACTS:
On 27 May 1997 Primo Campuhan y Bello was found
guilty of statutory rape and sentenced by the court a
quo to the extreme penalty of death,[5] hence this
case before us on automatic review under Art. 335 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659.[6]
As may be culled from the evidence on record, on 25
April 1996, at around 4 oclock in the afternoon, 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
childrens room kneeling before Crysthel whose
pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already
removed, while his short pants were down to his
knees.
According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis
into Crysthels 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.[8] Seconds later, Primo was
apprehended by those who answered Corazon's call
for help. They held the accused at the back of their
compound until they were advised by their neighbors
to call thebarangay officials instead of detaining him
for his misdeed. Physical examination of the victim
yielded negative results. No evident sign of extragenital physical injury was noted by the medico-legal
officer on Crysthels body as her hymen was intact
and its orifice was only 0.5 cm. in diameter.
Primo Campuhan had only himself for a witness in his
defense. He maintained his innocence and assailed
the charge as a mere scheme of Crysthel's mother
who allegedly harbored ill will against him for his
refusal to run an errand for her.[9] He asserted that in
truth Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to
ride on his back when she suddenly pulled him down
causing both of them to fall down on the floor. It was
in this fallen position that Corazon chanced upon
them and became hysterical. Corazon slapped him
and accused him of raping her child. He got mad but
restrained himself from hitting back when he realized
she was a woman. Corazon called for help from her
brothers to stop him as he ran down from the second
floor.

Vicente, Corazon's brother, timely responded to her

call for help and accosted Primo. Vicente punched
him and threatened to kill him. Upon hearing the
threat, Primo immediately ran towards the house of
Conrado Plata but Vicente followed him there. Primo
pleaded for a chance to explain as he reasoned out
that the accusation was not true. But Vicente kicked
him instead. When Primo saw Vicente holding a piece
of lead pipe, Primo raised his hands and turned his
back to avoid the blow. At this moment, the relatives
and neighbors of Vicente prevailed upon him to take
Primo to the barangay hall instead, and not to maul
or possibly kill him
The accused Primo Campuhan seriously assails the
credibility of Ma. Corazon Pamintuan. He argues that
her narration should not be given any weight or
credence since it was punctured with implausible
statements and improbabilities so inconsistent with
human nature and experience. He claims that it was
truly inconceivable for him to commit the rape
considering that Crysthels younger sister was also in
the room playing while Corazon was just downstairs
preparing Milo drinks for her daughters. Their
presence alone as possible eyewitnesses and the fact
that the episode happened within the family
compound where a call for assistance could easily be
heard and responded to, would have been enough to
deter him from committing the crime. Besides, the
door of the room was wide open for anybody to see
what could be taking place inside. Primo insists that
it was almost inconceivable that Corazon could give
such a vivid description of the alleged sexual contact
when from where she stood she could not have
possibly seen the alleged touching of the sexual
organs of the accused and his victim. He asserts that
the absence of any external signs of physical injuries
or of penetration of Crysthels private parts more
than bolsters his innocence.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a consummated rape
RULING: In People v. De la Pea[11] we clarified that
the decisions finding a case for rape even if the
attackers penis merely touched the external portions
of the female genitalia were made in the context of
the presence or existence of an erect penis capable
of full penetration. Where the accused failed to
achieve an erection, had a limp or flaccid penis, or an
oversized penis which could not fit into the victim's

vagina, the Court nonetheless held that rape was

consummated on the basis of the victim's testimony
that the accused repeatedly tried, but in vain, to
insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood
reached the labia of herpudendum as the victim felt
his organ on the lips of her vulva,[12] or that the penis
of the accused touched the middle part of her
vagina.[13] Thus, 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
victims 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.[14] As the labias, which are
required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their
natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or
the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is
to attain some degree of penetration beneath the
surface, hence, the conclusion that touching
the labia majora or the labia minora of
the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.

The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the

female genital organs that are visible in the perineal
area, e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora,
the hymen, the clitoris, the vaginal orifice, etc.
Themons pubis is the rounded eminence that
becomes hairy after puberty, and is instantly visible
within the surface. The next layer is the labia
majora or the outer lips of the female organ
composed of the outer convex surface and the inner
surface. The skin of the outer convex surface is
covered with hair follicles and is pigmented, while
the inner surface is a thin skin which does not have
any hair but has many sebaceous glands. Directly
beneath the labia majora is the labia minora.
[15]
Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must
be entered for rape to be consummated,[16] and not
merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the
female organ. 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.
Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been
confined to the oft-quoted "touching of the female
organ,"[17] but has also progressed into being
described as "the introduction of the male organ into
thelabia of the pudendum,"[18] or "the bombardment
of the drawbridge."[19] But, to our mind, the case at
bar merely constitutes a "shelling of the castle of
orgasmic potency," or as earlier stated, a "strafing of
the citadel of passion."
A review of the records clearly discloses that the
prosecution utterly failed to discharge its onus of
proving that Primos penis was able to penetrate
Crysthels vagina however slight. Even if we
grant arguendothat Corazon witnessed Primo in the
act of sexually molesting her daughter, we seriously
doubt the veracity of her claim that she saw the
inter-genital contact between Primo and Crysthel.
When asked what she saw upon entering her
childrens room Corazon plunged into saying that she
saw Primo poking his penis on the vagina of Crysthel
without explaining her relative position to them as to
enable her to see clearly and sufficiently, in

automotive lingo, the contact point. It should be

recalled that when Corazon chanced upon Primo and
Crysthel, the former was allegedly in a kneeling
position, which Corazon described thus:
Q: How was Primo holding your daughter?
A: (The witness is demonstrating in such a way that
the chest of the accused is pinning down the victim,
while his right hand is holding his penis and his left
hand is spreading the legs of the victim).
It can reasonably be drawn from the foregoing
narration that Primos kneeling position rendered an
unbridled observation impossible. Not even a
vantage point from the side of the accused and the
victim would have provided Corazon an unobstructed
view of Primos penis supposedly reaching Crysthels
external genitalia, i.e., labia majora, labia minora,
hymen, clitoris, etc., since the legs and arms of Primo
would have hidden his movements from Corazons
sight, not to discount the fact that Primos right hand
was allegedly holding his penis thereby blocking it
from Corazons view. It is the burden of the
prosecution to establishhow Corazon could have seen
the sexual contact and to shove her account into the
permissive sphere of credibility. It is not enough that
she claims that she saw what was done to her
daughter. It is required that her claim be properly
demonstrated to inspire belief. The prosecution failed
in this respect, thus we cannot conclude without any
taint of serious doubt that inter-genital contact was
at all achieved. To hold otherwise would be to resolve
the doubt in favor of the prosecution but to run
roughshod over the constitutional right of the
accused to be presumed innocent. Corazon insists
that Primo did not restrain himself from pursuing his
wicked intention despite her timely appearance, thus
giving her the opportunity to fully witness his beastly
act.
We are not persuaded. It is inconsistent with mans
instinct of self-preservation to remain where he is
and persist in satisfying his lust even when he knows
fully well that his dastardly acts have already been

discovered or witnessed by no less than the mother

of his victim. For, the normal behavior or reaction of
Primo upon learning of Corazons presence would
have been to pull his pants up to avoid being caught
literally with his pants down. The interval, although
relatively short, provided more than enough
opportunity for Primo not only to desist from but
even to conceal his evil design.
What appears to be the basis of the conviction of the
accused was Crysthel's answer to the question of the
court Q: Did the penis of Primo touch your organ?
A: Yes, sir.
But when asked further whether his penis penetrated
her organ, she readily said, "No." Thus Q: But did his penis penetrate your organ?
A: No, sir.[20]
This testimony alone should dissipate the mist of
confusion that enshrouds the question of whether
rape in this case was consummated. It has foreclosed
the possibility of Primos penis penetrating her
vagina, however slight. Crysthel made a categorical
statement denying penetration,[21] obviously induced
by a question propounded to her who could not have
been aware of the finer distinctions
between touching andpenetration. Consequently, it is
improper and unfair to attach to this reply of a four
(4)-year old child, whose vocabulary is yet as
underdeveloped as her sex and whose language is
bereft of worldly sophistication, an adult
interpretation that because the penis of the
accused touched her organ there was sexual entry.
Nor can it be deduced that in trying to penetrate the
victim's organ the penis of the accused touched the
middle portion of her vagina and entered the labia of
her pudendum as the prosecution failed to establish
sufficiently that Primo made efforts to penetrate
Crysthel.[22] Corazon did not say, nay, not even hint

that Primo's penis was erect or that he responded

with an erection.[23] On the contrary, Corazon even
narrated that Primo had to hold his penis with his
right hand, thus showing that he had yet to attain an
erection to be able to penetrate his victim.
Antithetically, the possibility of Primos penis having
breached Crysthels vagina is belied by the child's
own assertion that she resisted Primos advances by
putting her legs close together;[24] consequently, she
did not feel any intense pain but just felt "not happy"
about what Primo did to her.[25] 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.[26] None
was shown in this case. Although a child's testimony
must be received with due consideration on account
of her tender age, the Court endeavors at the same
time to harness only what in her story appears to be
true, acutely aware of the equally guaranteed rights
of the accused. Thus, we have to conclude that even
on the basis of the testimony of Crysthel alone the
accused cannot be held liable for consummated
rape; worse, be sentenced to death.
Lastly, it is pertinent to mention the medico legal
officer's finding in this case that there were no
external signs of physical injuries on complaining
witness body to conclude from a medical
perspective that penetration had taken place. As Dr.
Aurea P. Villena explained, although the absence of
complete penetration of the hymen does not negate
the possibility of contact, she clarified that there was
no medical basis to hold that there was sexual
contact between the accused and the victim