You are on page 1of 5

PEOPLE V PASCUA GR 151858 NOVEMBER 27, 2003 FACTS: On August 2000, Alma Agapay, a 22-year old mental retardate, was

on the railroad tracks near their house when Pascua approached her and said, “I don’t know you but I know your mother.” He then pulled Alma and brought her inside an old abandoned train car. He tied her hands above her head and made her lie down on the floor covered with a flattened carton box. He removed her dress and panties, after which he also undressed. While holding a knife with his right hand, he kissed her then inserted his penis into her vagina, causing it to bleed. Alma felt pain. She shouted and tried to fight back but her efforts were in vain since she could not move her right arm due to a stroke she suffered before. After raping her three or four times, appellant threatened to kill her and her mother if she would tell anybody what happened. A month later, Alma’s mother, Trinidad Agapay, noticed that her daughter was behaving strangely. When she asked her what was wrong, the latter confessed that she had been raped by appellant. Trinidad brought Alma to the police authorities where they filed a complaint for rape against appellant. Alma was thereafter brought to Dr. Ma. Arlene Bicomong Cuervas, a physician at the San Pablo City District Hospital. However, Dr. Cuervas only conducted a partial medical examination on Alma because she refused to undergo internal examination since it was painful. Dr. Cuervas found that Alma sustained hematoma on the hypogastric area measuring about 6 x 3 cm. The TC find the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape. ISSUE: W/n the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of rape despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt HELD: Case law has it that a freshly lacerated hymen is not an essential element of rape. Mere touching, no matter how slight of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genitalia even without rapture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to consummate rape. We have consistently held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. It is merely corroborative in character and not indispensable. The accused may be convicted even solely on the basis of her testimony if credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of things. Moreover, appellant cannot point to any motive as to why Alma would file a complaint for rape against him. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the appellant as the author of the crime shall be given full faith and credit. [16] Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The mental condition of the victim cannot be appreciated to aggravate the crime and to warrant the death penalty. Under Article 266 (10) of the Revised Penal Code, the rape shall be qualified “when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.” Being in the nature of a qualifying circumstance, this should be specifically alleged in the Information. The allegation therein of the mental disability of the victim is insufficient. What should be alleged is the knowledge by the offender of such mental disability.[17] Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.

8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. He instructed her not to tell to anyone.PEOPLE V ANTIVOLA GR 139236 FEBRUARY 3. Republic Act No. 2004 FACTS: On December 4. if credible. 266-a and 266-b of republic act 8353. provided under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority. is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. . threat.. Her mother accoimpanied Rachel in taking a bath and he noticed a reddish discoloration on her private part and asked her daughter who did that. In fact.He approached Rachel and asked her to go with him inside his house. state as follows: Article 266-A. the testimony of the victim alone. HELD: Rachel’s testimony says it all. The medical certificate is presented merely to corroborate the victim’s declaration that she was sexually molested. – Rape is committed – 1) a) b) c) d) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances: Through force. Rachel pointed to Bungi as one who defiled her. Rachel saw the appellant Rodel (Bungi) Antivola feeding the fishes in the nearby fishpond. . which repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and classified rape as a crime against persons. ISSUE: W/n the lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape defined and penalized under atrs. The TC convicted him of rape in its qualified form and sentenced him to suffer death penatly. Article 266-B. more so if she is a minor. together with three other children.. honesty and sincerity. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.. even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. says that she has been raped. The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: . were playing outside. amending art.. [39] In rape cases. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. 335 of the revised penal code in relation to republic act no. 1997. or intimidation. It is marked by spontaneity. he removed Rachel’s shorts and touched her private parts. They reported it to the police officers and Rachel was examined by Dr. Dr. While inside Bungi’s house. what is more telling in the medical findings proffered in evidence by the prosecution is the presence of hymenal lacerations in different positions in the victim’s genitalia which is the best physical evidence of her forcible defloration. 7610 despite failure on the part of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyound reasoble doubt.. and When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented. Penalties. Aves explained that the fresh lacerations on Rachel’s hymen could have been caused by “manipulation of the organ or penetration of whatsoever. The new provisions on rape. When And How Committed. . Aves.[38] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Rachel. He brought out his penis and forcefully inserted it to Rachel’s private part. was already effective. When a woman. telling her that they would play another game.. At the time of the rape. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Rape.

the trial court made no finding as to the victim’s age. and what is sought to be proved is that she was then less than seven years old. [59] attesting to the fact that her five-year-old daughter was raped. Moreover.[60] Accordingly. It must be stressed that the severity of death penalty. in the absence of sufficient proof of Rachel’s minority. since Rachel was alleged to be already five years old at the time of the rape.5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old. . makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence. especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out. Sally’s testimony regarding Rachel’s age was insufficient. Her testimony will suffice only if it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.[58] which was adopted as part of the latter’s direct testimony. In the present case. There is no such express and clear declaration and admission of the appellant that Rachel was less than seven years old when he raped her. The only evidence of the victim’s age is her testimony[57] and that of her mother’s (Sally de Guzman’s) Simumpaang Salaysay. no birth certificate or any similar authentic document was presented and offered in evidence to prove Rachel’s age. the appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to suffer the death penalty.

When Yao San alighted from the van to open the gate. On July 26. Arnaldo identified hi co-participants in the incident. Third. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. one of the kidnappers. First. surrendered in the police and he was assisted by a lawyer in his extrajudicial confession. On the next day. They specifically testified that during the incident. On July 23. When the van stopped. Yao San arrived at the designated place but none of the kidnappers showed up. 1999. Abagatnan. and (4) in the commission of the offense. Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. or a public officer. (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made. any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days. threats to kill were made and the kidnap victims include females. As earlier found. the corpses of Yao San’s wife and his wife were found at the La Mesa Dam QC. one performing one part and the other performing another part as to complete the crime. a group of men approched him and poked a gun to him and dragged him inside the van. the kidnappers cannot reached Yao San and the 2 of the kidnappers accompanied Abagatnan and Robert to look for Yao San and left her in the farm for her to remind the money that they were asking. The kidnappers were able to reached him through celphone and instructed him to pay 5M and bring the money to the Usan dumpsite in QC. . and (2) accompanied Abagatnan and Robert in going to the poultry farm to search for and remind Yao San about the ransom demanded. The RTC. the crime of kidnapping is committed with the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual. 1999. 2009 FACTS: On July16. appellant Reyes (1) approached and pointed a gun at Yao San and dragged the latter inside the van. Their extra-judicial confessions also detailed the particular role/participation played by each of appellants and their cohorts in the kidnapping of the family. (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal. the Yao family was taken against their will. the kidnappers instructed Yao San to produce 5M for them to spare the lives of his family members and then left Yao San and other memebers were left in the van. And fourth.PEOPLE V REYES GR 178300 MARCH 17. Robert and Yao positively identified appellant Reyes as one of their kidnappers. with a view to the attainment of the same object. Court of Appeals and this Court found such testimonies credible. Nevertheless. Second. evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability of appellant Reyes. there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor. The RTC and CA found the guilt of the accused and convicted for special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide . or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty. ISSUE: W/N the TC erred in finding a conspiracy between the appellants HELD: Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. the Yao Family went to their poulty farm in Bulacan. the foregoing individual acts of appellants and their cohorts demonstrated their unity of purpose and design in kidnapping the Yao family for the purpose of extorting ransom. both died of asphyxia by strangultion. He went back to the farm and sought for help. When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object. female. The blindfolded them and they took over the van and went to other route. (2) he kidnaps or detains another. Then the police officers arrested the said accused. 1999. appellants and their cohorts are private individuals. All of the foregoing elements were duly establish by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the prosecution in the case at bar. even without the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores. (b) it is committed by simulating public authority. Clearly. conspiracy exists. appellants and their cohorts kidnapped the Yao family by taking control of their van and detaining them in a secluded place.

The kidnappers were able to reached him through celphone and instructed him to pay 5M and bring the money to the Usan dumpsite in QC. threats to kill were made and the kidnap victims include females. or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor. 1999. the corpses of Yao San’s wife and his wife were found at the La Mesa Dam QC. appellant Reyes (1) approached and pointed a gun at Yao San and dragged the latter inside the van. ISSUE: W/N the TC erred in finding a conspiracy between the appellants HELD: Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. All of the foregoing elements were duly establish by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the prosecution in the case at bar. They specifically testified that during the incident. Abagatnan. When the van stopped. Clearly. and (2) accompanied Abagatnan and Robert in going to the poultry farm to search for and remind Yao San about the ransom demanded. (2) he kidnaps or detains another. appellants and their cohorts are private individuals. . the foregoing individual acts of appellants and their cohorts demonstrated their unity of purpose and design in kidnapping the Yao family for the purpose of extorting ransom. evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability of appellant Reyes. the kidnappers instructed Yao San to produce 5M for them to spare the lives of his family members and then left Yao San and other memebers were left in the van. a group of men approched him and poked a gun to him and dragged him inside the van. Second. As earlier found. The RTC. there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Their extra-judicial confessions also detailed the particular role/participation played by each of appellants and their cohorts in the kidnapping of the family. Yao San arrived at the designated place but none of the kidnappers showed up. And fourth. First. the Yao family was taken against their will. 1999. 1999. the kidnappers cannot reached Yao San and the 2 of the kidnappers accompanied Abagatnan and Robert to look for Yao San and left her in the farm for her to remind the money that they were asking. any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days. Arnaldo identified hi co-participants in the incident. On the next day. one performing one part and the other performing another part as to complete the crime. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. the Yao Family went to their poulty farm in Bulacan. On July 23. and (4) in the commission of the offense. (b) it is committed by simulating public authority. with a view to the attainment of the same object. Then the police officers arrested the said accused. On July 26. appellants and their cohorts kidnapped the Yao family by taking control of their van and detaining them in a secluded place. female. the crime of kidnapping is committed with the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual. even without the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores. conspiracy exists. 2009 FACTS: On July16. He went back to the farm and sought for help. both died of asphyxia by strangultion. Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused.PEOPLE V REYES GR 178300 MARCH 17. one of the kidnappers. (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal. When Yao San alighted from the van to open the gate. The RTC and CA found the guilt of the accused and convicted for special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide . When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object. Nevertheless. surrendered in the police and he was assisted by a lawyer in his extrajudicial confession. Third. or a public officer. (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made. Court of Appeals and this Court found such testimonies credible. or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty. Robert and Yao positively identified appellant Reyes as one of their kidnappers. The blindfolded them and they took over the van and went to other route.