Rape

1. People vs. Joson

Facts Michael Joson was charged with violation of Articles 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 7610 for raping his biological sister
aged 14 years. with the use of force and intimidation and taking
advantage of his moral ascendancy over her, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said [AAA], against
her will and consent, thereby debasing, degrading and demeaning her
intrinsic worth and integrity as a child, to the damage and prejudice of
said complainant.

The prosecutions evidence is based on the sole testimony of the victim.

AAA lives with appellant and his common-law partner. AAA testified that
at around 1:00 in the morning of 14 May 2009, and while appellants wife
was away, AAA was awakened by appellant undressing her. AAA tried to
struggle but appellant was tightly holding her arms. After undressing her,
appellant kissed and mounted her. Appellant was able to insert his penis
into her vagina. AAA felt pain in her genitalia. Thereafter, appellant went
back to sleep leaving AAA crying. At about 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning,
appellant left AAA with a letter apologizing for what happened and
begging her not to tell on his wife. The letter reads:
Ne!
Sorry Ne. Patawarin mo ko. Dalalang ng kalasingan kaya ko
nagawa ang ganung bagay. Sana powala ng ibang makaalam
nito lalu na si Ate Cindy mo. Ayokong masira na naman ang
pamilya ko at mga buhay natin. Paki tapon muna to pag tapos
mong basahin.5
At around 5:00 in the afternoon of that same date, AAA related to
appellants wife the rape incident.6 And on 1 June 2009, AAA,
accompanied by her father, reported the incident to the police and she
executed a sworn statement detailing the rape
Appellant admitted that AAA is his sister but he proffered the defense of
alibi and claimed that he was staying in Alfonso, Cavite on 14 May 2009
and only went back to his house in Dasmarias on 26 May 2009.
Appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him and speculated
that AAA resented him because he was strict with his sister. Appellant
also denied writing the apology letter and presented his specimen
handwriting in court.8
After evaluating the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty
 beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and meted outthe penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
CA Affirmed.
Appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove all the
elements of rape as defined under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, particularly the elements of force, threat or
intimidation.
Appellant argues that AAA did not allege that she was threatened
by appellant with the use of any firearm or any bladed weapon
nor did appellant say anything to threaten or intimidate her.
With respect to moral ascendancy, appellant contends that the
Court in a recent case did not consider a brother as one of those
close kin who has moral ascendancy over a victim that would
substitute for force and intimidation.
Appellant further points out that there was no showing ofany
resistance on the part of AAA to his alleged sexual advances.
Issue
Held The Supreme Court has, time and again, ruled that the force or violence
that is required inrape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be
overpowering or irresistible. That it enables the offender to consummate
his purpose is enough. The parties relative age, size and strength
should be taken into account in evaluating the existence of the element
of force in the crime of rape. The degree of force which may not suffice
when the victim is an adult may be more than enough if employed
against a person of tender age.

We are not persuaded by the accused-appellants insistence that the

absence of any resistance on the partof AAA raised doubts as to
whether the sexual congress was without her consent. The failure of the
victim to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist is 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 of because of fear.
Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a
woman voluntarily succumbed tothe lust of anaccused. Rape victims
show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while
others may be too intimidated to offer any resistanceat all. After all,
resistance is not an element of rape and its absence does not denigrate
AAAs claim that the accused-appellant consummated his bestial act. 16
We likewise agree that appellantshould suffer the penalty of reclusion
 perpetua. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
when the victim is under eighteen (18) years ofage and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits
the imposition of the death penalty, however, the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua.
In conformance with the prevailing jurisprudence, we deem it proper to
modify the amount of damages awarded in this case. In People v.
Gambao,21 we increase the amounts of indemnity and damage where
the penalty for the crime committed is death but which cannot be
imposed because of Republic Act No. 9346, as follow:
1. P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2. P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to
have suffered and thus needs no proof; and
3. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the
public good.

2. People vs. Candellada- Father

Facts Vicente Candellada was charged with attempted rape and 8 counts of
consummated rape.
That on or about December 28, 2004, at about 7:00 oclock in the
evening at x x x, Lanao del Norte, Philippines an[d] within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is father of
[AAA3], a 14-year-old minor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with lewd design, and who was under the influence of liquor,
wanted to have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], but the latter strongly
refused, so that accused got mad and boxed, and battered [AAA], by the
use of a piece of wood, but did not perform all the acts of execution
which should have produced the crime of Rape as a consequence by
reason of the fact that [AAA], shouted for help and the people of x x x,
Lanao del Norte, were able to apprehend the aforesaid accused.

AAA was the second of three daughters of accused-appellant and his

deceased first wife. AAA lived with accused-appellant and the latters
second wife, while AAAs two sisters lived with accused-appellants
mother. While they were still living in Davao, accused-appellant
impregnated AAA. When AAA was already five months pregnant,
accused-appellant brought her with him to Lanao del Norte. Accused-
appellant and AAA arrived in Lanao del Norte on May 30, 2004. 24

Accused-appellant approached Gemina, who he came to know during a

previous visit to Lanao del Norte in 1993. Accused-appellant asked
permission if he could stay at Geminas old house with his wife,
introducing AAA to Gemina as his wife. Gemina immediately noticed that
AAA was pregnant. She also commented that AAA was so young she
could already be accused-appellants daughter, but accused-appellant
only laughed. Gemina and her husband allowed accused-appellant and
AAA to stay at their old house on the condition that accused-appellant
would pay for the electricity.25

While they were staying at Geminas old house, accused-appellant had

intercourse with AAA many times, but AAA could only remember eight
specific dates, i.e., on May 30, 2004; June 2, 2004; June 12, 2004; July
10, 2004; August 13, 2004; November 5, 2004; December 15, 2004; and
December 25, 2004. When asked to explain what intercourse meant,
AAA stated that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.
AAA further testified that she consistently resisted accused-appellants
bestial acts but he threatened to stab her with a knife. Lastly, AAA
narrated that she delivered a baby boy with Geminas help on
September 24, 2004, but the baby died four days later, on September
28, 2004.

Defense
Accused-appellant recalled that AAA went to school in Davao. Accused-
appellant and AAA had misunderstandings because he would admonish
AAA for roaming around late in the evening. In 2004, AAA got pregnant
and had to stop her studies. Accused-appellant did not inquire from
AAAs sisters, friends, classmates, or teachers who impregnated AAA.
Accused-appellant, upon the insistence of his second wife, brought AAA
to Lanao del Norte to conceal AAAs pregnancy. Accused-appellant and
AAA stayed at Geminas old house while in Lanao del Norte. Accused-
appellant denied introducing AAA to Gemina as his wife. He introduced
AAA to Gemina as his daughter and said that AAA was impregnated by
a classmate. By accused-appellants account, AAA gave birth on
October 10, 2004 but the baby died. Accused-appellant and AAA were
planning to go back to Davao in January 2005 after accused-appellant
had saved enough money from making charcoal and cutting grass. 3
RTC
 The RTC rendered its Consolidated Decision on December 23, 2005.
The RTC found that there was not enough evidence to prove accused-
appellants culpability for the charge of attempted rape on December 28,
2004. Citing Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, 35 the RTC pointed out
that the overt acts committed by accused-appellant resulted only in
AAAs physical injuries that took five to seven days to heal and slight
physical injuries were not necessarily included in the charge of
attempted rape. As for the charge of eight counts of consummated rape,
the RTC pronounced that [AAAs] down-to-earth testimony was
convincing and straightforward that she was abused [by] her father in x x
x Lanao del Norte.

CA
Defense says that it is mere allegation as AAA did not describe vividly
how she was raped. She said that she was raped but without taking off
his undergarments. Affirmed with modification for appreciating qualifying
circumstance of minority and relationship.
Issue
Held Affirmed the conviction for 8 counts of rape. For a conviction of qualified
rape, the prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of (1)
sexual congress, (2) with a woman, (3) by force and without consent;
and in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the additional
elements that (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of
the rape, and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate
or adopted) of the victim.
The fourth and fifth elements, minority and relationship, were admitted
by accused-appellant during the pre-trial conference.

3. People vs. Cataytay- Imbecility/ Mind of a 5 year old

Facts On September 7, 2003, at around 6:30 p.m., BBB left AAA in their house
to look for BBBs 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, ni-rape 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 how she 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.6chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

BBB identified a Psychological Evaluation Report from the Department

of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) dated May 25, 1999, which
was conducted in connection with another rape case. The report stated
that AAA had the mental capacity of an eight-year-old child. 7 BBB also
identified AAAs birth certificate which showed that she was biologically
19 years old at the time of the incident. 8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On cross-examination, BBB confirmed that AAA was the victim in a rape

case in 1999 against a certain Norberto Lerit. BBB admitted that she did
not personally witness the alleged rape committed by the accused-
appellant.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

When AAA appeared as the second witness for the prosecution, the
prosecution manifested that by merely looking at her, it was apparent
that she was mentally retardate. 10 AAA, who was crying while being
asked questions, testified that she was raped by accused-appellant by
inserting his penis into her, despite her protestations. After the deed,
she was given money by accused-appellant. She knew the accused-
appellant before the incident as a shoe repairman.

For the defense, accused-appellant testified that on September 7,

2003, at around 7:00 p.m., he was in his house together with his brother,
feeding his four-year-old daughter. He then went out and proceeded to
a videoke bar, which was around 20 meters from his house. 15 He stayed
at the videoke bar for less than 15 minutes, as barangay officers
suddenly arrived and arrested him. Upon asking why he was being
arrested, the officers told him that he was the suspect in the rape of
AAA. He was brought to the Barangay Hall, where he denied the
accusations against him. He estimated that the house of BBB was more
or less 50 meters away from his house, 16 and that it would take more or
less a one minute walk from the videoke bar to the house of AAA. 17
Accused-appellant admitted that by merely looking at AAA, he could tell
that she has a mental disability

RTC and CA convicted him.

 In his appellants brief, accused-appellant claims that BBBs testimony
concerning the details of the commission of the rape as narrated by AAA
is hearsay and therefore has no probative value. Accused-appellant
also points out that the Psychological Evaluation Report dated May 25,
1999 and Psychological Report dated June 29, 2009 illustrate that AAA
can be easily influenced.

The RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of

imprisonment of twenty years and one day to forty years of reclusion
perpetua. The Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty to be
simply reclusion perpetua. Since reclusion perpetua is an indivisible
penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law cannot be
37
applied. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Issue
Held he 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. 34 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. 35 Accused-appellant is therefore
criminally liable for rape under paragraph 1(b) of Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code.

4. People vs. Jalosjos

Facts Romeo Jalosjos was convicted for 2 counts of statutory rape and 6
counts of acts of lasciviousness on an 11 year old Rosilyn Delantar,a
commercial sex worker peddled by her foster father.
Issue
Held
It must be stressed that rape is a technical term, the precise and
accurate definition of which could not have been understood by
Rosilyn. Indeed, without the assistance of a lawyer, who could explain to
her the intricacies of rape, she expectedly could not distinguish in her
affidavits and consequently disclose with proficient exactitude the act or
acts of accused-appellant that under the contemplation of law constitute
the crime of rape. This is especially true in the present case where there
was no exhaustive and clear-cut evidence of full and complete
penetration of the victims vagina. It may well be that Rosilyn thought, as
any layman would probably do, that there must be the fullest penetration
of the victims vagina to qualify a sexual act to rape.

In People v. Campuhan,[21] we ruled that rape is consummated by

the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia
of the pudendum by the penis. There need not be full and complete
penetration of the victims vagina for rape to be consummated. There
being no showing that the foregoing technicalities of rape was fully
explained to Rosilyn on all those occasions that she was interviewed by
the police, the NBI agents and DSWD social workers, she could not
therefore be expected to intelligibly declare that accused-appellants act
of pressing his sex organ against her labia without full entry of the
vaginal canal amounted to 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. The
mons 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 hairs but has many
sebaceous glands. Directly beneath the labia majora is the labia
minora. Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for
rape to be consummated, 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.

the Cord Dressing Room Book and the Master List of Live Births of
the hospital are admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein.

The preparation of these hospital documents preceded that of the

birth and baptismal certificates of Rosilyn. They establish independent
and material facts prepared by unbiased and disinterested persons
under environmental circumstances apart from those that may have
attended the preparation of the birth and baptismal certificates. Hence,
these hospital records, to reiterate, are sufficient to support the
testimony of Rosilyn as to her age.

In People v. Optana,[44] the Court, citing the case of People v. Larin,

[45]
explained the elements of the offense of violation of Section 5 (b) of
R.A. 7610, or the Child Abuse Law, as follows:

1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious

conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

Lascivious conduct is defined under Article XIII, Section 32 of the

Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. 7610, as follows:

[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the

genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction
of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of
the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a
person.