You are on page 1of 10

Union Bank of the Philippines and it should have the jurisdiction over

Desi Tomas. v. People, G.R. No. the case against her. The MeTC-
192565, Feb. 28, 2012 Makati City denied the Motion to
Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction
Crim Pro - Jurisdiction over the case since the Certificate
was notarized there and the
allegations in the Information
Facts: sufficiently charged Tomas with
Union bank filed two complaints for perjury. Her subsequent Motion for
sum of money with prayer for a writ Reconsideration was denied.
of replevin against spouses Eddie When the case was elevated to
and Eliza Tamondong and a John the RTC-Makati City, the petitioners
Doe. The first complaint was filed prayed that the ruling of the MeTC-
before the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay Makati City be annulled and set
City on April 13, 1998. The second aside on the ground of grave abuse of
complaint was filed on March 15, discretion. They also cited the
2000 and was raffled in the MeTC, rulings in US vs. Canet and Ilusorio
Branch 47, Pasay City. v. Bildner which state that "venue
and jurisdiction should be in the
In both cases, Desi Tomas place where the false document was
executed and signed the Certification presented".
against Forum Shopping. Then, she
was charged of deliberately violating The petition, however, was
Article 183 of the RPC (perjury) "by found to have no merit as a recent
falsely declaring under oath in the jurisprudence, Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy.
Certificate against Forum Shopping In the Sy Tiong Shiou case, the high
in the second complaint that she did court ruled that the criminal action
not commence any other action or shall be instituted and tried in the
proceeding involving the same issue court of the municipality where the
in another tribunal or agency". The perjury was committed, or where any
Certification was notarized in of its essential ingredients occured.
Makati City but was submitted and The petitioners then filed this
used in Pasay City, while the petition to the Supreme Court to
Information against Union Bank and address the seeming conflict between
Tomas was filed in Makati. the rulings in Illusorio v. Bildner and
Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash
on the grounds that the venue was Issue: Where is the proper venue of
improperly laid and that the facts do perjury under Art. 183 of the RPC -
not constitute an offense. On the first the place, where the Certificate
ground, Tomas argued that since it is against Forum Shopping was
the Pasay City Court where the notarized or where the Certification
Certificate was submitted and used, was presented to the trial court?
Held: The place where the Certificate nor civil, a written sown statement is
was notarized, the MeTC-Makati submitted, venue may either be at
City, is the proper venue for the the place where the sworn statement
criminal action. is submitted or where the oath was
The criminal act charged was taken as the taking of the oath and
for the execution of an affidavit that the submission are both material
contained a falsity. Art. 183 of the ingredients of the crime committed.
RPC is the applicable provision for In all cases, the determination of
this case; and following so, the venue shall be based on the acts
jurisdiction and venue should be alleged in the Information to be
determined on the basis of this constitutive of the crime committed.
article which penalizes one who
makes an affidavit upon any
material matter before a competent
person authorized to administer an
oath in cases in which the law so
requires. The constitutive act of the
offense is the making of an affidavit,
so, the criminal act is consummated
when the statement containing a
falsity is subscribed and sworn
before a duly authorized person.'

The SC finds the ruling in Sy

Tiong as more in accord with Art.
183 of the RPC. The Court ruled that
the crime of perjury committed
through the making of a false
affidavit under Art. 183 of the RPC
is committed at the time the affiant
subscribes and swears to his or her
affidavit since it is at that time that
all the elements of the crime of
perjury are executed. When the
crime is committed through false
testimony under oath in a proceeding
that is neither criminal nor civil,
venue is at the place where the
testimony under oath is given.

If in lieu of or as supplement to
the actual testimony made in a
proceeding that is neither criminal
[ GR No. 199210, Oct 23, 2013 ] [Appellant] and wife [BBB] were
PEOPLE v. RICARDO M. VIDAA separated in 1998. They have four (4)
children namely: [AAA], [CCC],
[DDD] and [EEE]. In 1999,
FACTS [appellant] began living in with a
certain Irene Valoria, his common-
The accusatory portion of the law wife, who became the
Information[3] dated February 6, aforementioned children's
2004 for rape in relation to Republic stepmother. They were staying in a
Act No. 7610 reads as follows: one-bedroom house owned by a
certain Edgar Magsakay at Sta.
That on or about the 16th day of Maria, Licab, Nueva Ecija. At night,
September 2003, at x x x, Province of [appellant] and his common-law wife
Nueva Ecija, Republic of the sleep in the sala while the children
Philippines and within the occupy the bedroom. [AAA] is the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, eldest of the brood and was 15 years
the above-named accused with lewd old in the year 2003, having been
designs and intent to have carnal born on 13 June 1988.
knowledge of [AAA[4]], his own
daughter, a minor, 15 years old, and Around midnight of 16 September
while using his influence as a father, 2003, [appellant] was alone at the
over said minor, did then and there sala and the children were asleep
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously inside the bedroom. [AAA] suddenly
have carnal knowledge of and sexual was jolted from her sleep when
intercourse with said minor against somebody pulled her out of the bed
her will and consent, to her damage and brought her to the sala. She
and prejudice. later recognized the person as her
father, herein [appellant], who
After more than a year of being at covered her mouth and told her not
large since the issuance on to make any noise. At the sala,
September 1, 2004 of the warrant for [appellant] forcibly removed [AAA]'s
his arrest,[5] appellant was finally short pants, t-shirt, bra and panty.
arrested and subsequently arraigned As she lay naked, [appellant]
on January 30, 2006 wherein he inserted his penis into [AAA]'s
pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the vagina. [AAA]'s ordeal lasted for
charge of rape.[6] about five (5) minutes and all the
while she felt an immense pain.
[Appellant] tried to touch [AAA]'s
other private parts but she resisted.
The prosecution's version of the
During the consummation of
events that transpired in this case
[appellant]'s lust upon his daughter,
was narrated in the Plaintiff-
he warned her not to tell anybody or
Appellee's Brief in this manner:
else he will kill her and her siblings.
Appellant vehemently denies his
The next day, [AAA] went to the eldest child's (AAA's) allegation of
house of Francisco and Zenny rape by asseverating that he could
Joaquin. Spouses Joaquin are friends not have raped AAA because, on the
of [appellant], whose house is about date when the alleged rape took
500 meters away. Zenny Joaquin place, she was living in Francisco
noticed something was bothering
and Zenny Joaquin's house and not
[AAA] so she confronted the latter.
in his residence where the alleged
[AAA] broke down and revealed to
Zenny what happened to her at the rape was consummated. This
hands of [appellant]. Taken aback by assertion was corroborated on
the trauma suffered by the young material points by appellant's son,
lass, Zenny promptly accompanied EEE. Furthermore, appellant insists
[AAA] to the police to report the that the credibility of AAA is suspect
incident. since her narration of the alleged
rape incident does not indicate that
The examination of the medico-legal she resisted appellant's carnal
officer on [AAA] revealed "positive desires.
healed laceration at 7 o'clock position
positive hymenal tag."[7] (Citations We find no merit in appellant's

Trial on the merits ensued and at the

conclusion of which the trial court HELD:
rendered judgment against appellant
In incestuous rape cases, the
by finding him guilty beyond
father's abuse of the moral
reasonable doubt of violation of
ascendancy and influence over his
Section 5 in relation to Section 31 of
daughter can subjugate the latter's
Republic Act No. 7610.
will thereby forcing her to do
whatever he wants.[19] In other
words, in an incestuous rape of a
minor, actual force or intimidation
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY need not be employed where the
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE overpowering moral influence of the
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF father would suffice.
We likewise rule as unmeritorious
appellant's assertion that he could
not have committed the felony
attributed to him because, at the
date of the alleged rape, AAA was
not residing at the place where the is no designation of the offense,
alleged rape occurred. Jurisprudence reference shall be made to the
tells us that both denial and alibi are section or subsection of the statute
inherently weak defenses which punishing it." The information
cannot prevail over the positive and clearly charged appellant with rape,
credible testimony of the prosecution a crime punishable under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the
witness that the accused committed
relevant portions of which provide:
the crime, thus, as between a
categorical testimony which has a Article 266-A. Rape; When And How
ring of truth on one hand, and a Committed. Rape is committed
mere denial and alibi on the other,
the former is generally held to 1) By a man who shall have carnal
prevail.[ knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
Moreover, we have held that for alibi
to prosper, it is necessary that the a) Through force, threat or
corroboration is credible, the same intimidation;
having been offered preferably by
disinterested witnesses.[22] Based on b) When the offended party is
this doctrine, the corroborating deprived of reason or is otherwise
testimony of appellant's son, EEE, unconscious;
who, undoubtedly, is a person
intimately related to him cannot c) By means of fraudulent
serve to reinforce his alibi. machination or grave abuse of
In view of the foregoing, we therefore
d) When the offended party is under
affirm the conviction of appellant. twelve (12) years of age or is
However, the trial court erred in demented, even though none of the
impliedly characterizing the offense circumstances mentioned above be
charged as sexual abuse under present.
Sections 5 and 31 of Republic Act No.
7610. The same statute likewise states:
Under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under
Rules of Court, it is required that paragraph 1 of the next preceding
"[t]he complaint or information shall article shall be punished by reclusion
state the designation of the offense perpetua.
given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, xxxx
and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there The death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following

1) When the victim is under eighteen

(18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of
the parent of the victim.

In the case at bar, appellant was

accused in the information with
feloniously having carnal knowledge
of his own minor daughter against
her will by using his influence as a
father. Considering further that the
minority of AAA and her relationship
to appellant were both alleged in the
information and proven in court, the
proper designation of appellant's
felony should have been qualified
[ GR No. 183100, Nov 28, 2012 ] a hut in the nearby forest; that on
PEOPLE v. ROGELIO March 1, 1999, BBB left the house
ABRENCILLO early to sell fish; that AAA was left
alone in the house and had lunch by
herself because he went out to chat
with neighbors; that after her lunch,
This appeal seeks to undo the AAA took a nap in the house, but his
conviction of the accused for the rape return to the house awakened her;
he had committed against AAA,[1] the that taking advantage of AAA being
15-year-old daughter of BBB, his alone in the house, he took off his
common-law wife. The Regional Trial pants and laid down beside her; that
Court, Branch 61, in Gumaca, he embraced her, but she brushed
Quezon (RTC) sentenced him to away his arms; that he then got up
death on March 4, 2002 on the and started taking her shorts off;
ground that the crime was qualified that she resisted and held on to her
by his being the step-father of the shorts; that in frustration, he went to
victim and her minority under 18 take his bolo and poked its sharp tip
years. By its January 29, 2008 unto her throat while threatening to
decision rendered in CA-G.R.CR-HC kill her; that she became petrified
No. 01123,[2] however, the Court of with fear and could not do anything
Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction more after that; that he then undress
but found the crime to be simple her, went on top of her, and inserted
rape, reducing the penalty to his penis into her vagina; that the
reclusion perpetua. penile insertion caused her pain;
that he then made push and pull
The records show that the accused motions until he spent himself inside
and BBB started their cohabitation her; that she could only beg for him
when AAA and CCC, who were twin to stop but he paid no heed to her
sisters, were only about three years pleas; that she cried later on; and
of age; that the common-law that he left her alone afterwards.
partners lived with BBB's daughters
in the same house for the next 12 The records further show that once
years; that a father-daughter the accused left her alone, she ran to
relationship developed between the the house of her Lolo Armin and
accused and BBB's daughters, with reported what the accused had just
AAA and CCC even considering him done to her; that Lolo Armin
as their own father and addressing accompanied her to the police station
him as itay (father); that AAA to report the rape; that she narrated
frequently accompanied him when he in her complaint affidavit that the
gathered wood and made charcoal in accused had raped her even before
that time, when she was still his step-daughter, and a minor, 15
younger; and that she underwent years of age, against her will.
physical examination by the
municipal health officer, Dra. The accused pleaded not guilty to the
Constancia Mecija, about two hours information on September 6, 2000.
after the commission of the rape.
Dra. Mecija rendered the following During the trial, the accused denied
findings in the medico-legal report having sexual intercourse with AAA,
relevant to AAA's physical although he admitted being in the
examination, viz: house at the alleged time of the rape.
He insisted that nobody was in the
CONCLUSIONS: house when he returned that
afternoon from his chore of gathering
1. No evident sign of extragenital
wood in the nearby forest; that upon
physical injuries noted in the
learning from a neighbor that AAA
body of the subject at the time
of examination. had left the house with her
kabarkada, he himself did the
2. Old healed hymenal cooking and waited for her to return
laceration, present.[3] home; and that he scolded her,
causing her to run away from home.
The Provincial Prosecutor of Quezon
Trial Court
filed in the RTC the information
dated March 26, 1999 charging the
accused with qualified rape allegedly
committed as follows: After trial, the RTC rendered
judgment, convicting the accused for
That on or about the 1st day of qualified rape and prescribing the
March 1999, at Barangay No. 8 death penalty. It considered AAA's
Poblacion, in the Municipality of testimony as credible and reliable
Gen. Luna, Province of Quezon, because the medico-legal findings
Philippines, and within the
corroborated her accusation. It found
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
that the rape was qualified by
the above-named accused, armed
with a bolo, with lewd design, by relationship, the accused being her
means of force, threats and stepfather, and by her minority, she
intimidation, did then and there being 15 years of age at the time of
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously the commission of the crime.
have carnal knowledge of one AAA,
Court of Appeals the first instance, and the CA, on
review, ignored, misapprehended, or
Upholding the conviction but
misinterpreted any facts or
downgrading the offense to simple
circumstances supportive of or
rape because the accused was not
crucial to his defense.[10]
AAA's stepfather due to him and
Secondly, carnal knowledge of AAA
BBB not having been legally
as an element of rape was proved
although Dra. Mecija's findings
indicated no physical injuries on the
body of AAA.[11] Rather than
ISSUE: (Crim Pro) Was the
disproving the commission of the
downgrading of the offense valid?
rape, the absence of a finding of
physical injuries on AAA
corroborated her testimony that she
became petrified with fear and could
We affirm the conviction. not offer any physical resistance to
his sexual assault after he poked the
Firstly, the findings of the RTC and sharp tip of the bolo unto her neck.
the CA deserve respect mainly
because the RTC as the trial court It is relevant to mention that carnal
was in the best position to observe knowledge as an element of rape
the demeanor and conduct of AAA does not require penetration. Carnal
when she incriminated the accused knowledge is simply the act of a man
by her recollection of the incident in having sexual bodily connections
court. The personal observation of with a woman.[12] Indeed, all that is
AAA's conduct and demeanor necessary for rape to be
enabled the trial judge to discern consummated, according to People v.
whether she was telling the truth or Campuhan,[13] is for the penis of the
inventing it.[8] The trial judge's accused to come into contact with the
evaluation, which the CA affirmed, lips of the pudendum of the victim.
now binds the Court, leaving to the Hence, rape is consummated once
accused the burden to bring to the the penis of the accused touches
Court's attention facts or either labia of the pudendum.
circumstances of weight that were
overlooked, misapprehended, or Thirdly, we reject the posture of the
misinterpreted by the lower courts accused that AAA's old-healed
but would materially affect the hymenal lacerations, as Dra. Mecija
disposition of the case differently if found, disproved the recent
duly considered.[9] Alas, the accused commission of the rape charged.
made no showing that the RTC, in Proof of the presence of hymenal
laceration in the victim is neither reclusion perpetua to death
indispensable nor necessary in order whenever the rape is committed with
to establish the commission of rape. the use of a deadly weapon.
Hence, whether the hymenal
Although the information alleged the
lacerations of AAA were fresh or
use by the accused of a deadly
healed was not decisive.[14] In this
weapon (bolo) in the commission of
connection, it is timely to remind
the rape, the CA still correctly
that the commission of rape may be
prescribed the lesser penalty of
proved by evidence other than the
reclusion perpetua because the
physical manifestations of force
information did not allege the
being applied on the victim's
attendance of any aggravating
genitalia, like the presence of
circumstances. With the intervening
hymenal laceration. For sure, even
revision of the Rules of Criminal
the sole testimony of the victim, if
Procedure (i.e., effective on
found to be credible, suffices to prove
December 1, 2000) in order to now
the commission of rape. This rule
require the information to state the
avoids the situation of letting the
"acts or omissions complained of as
rapist escape punishment and go
constituting the offense and the
scot-free should he commit the rape
qualifying and aggravating
with only himself and the victim as
circumstances xxx in ordinary and
the witnesses to its commission.
concise language and not necessarily
in the language used in the statute
Fourthly, the CA correctly prescribed
but in terms sufficient to enable a
reclusion perpetua. The rape that
person of common understanding to
was committed was not qualified
know what offense is being charged
rape because the accused and BBB
as well as its qualifying and
were not legally married to each
aggravating circumstance and for
other. What the records show,
the court to pronounce judgment,"[15]
instead, was that they were in a
the Prosecution became precluded
common-law relationship, which
from establishing any act or
meant that he was not the stepfather
circumstance not specifically alleged
of AAA, contrary to the allegation of
in the information if such act or
the information. Under Article 266-B
circumstance would increase the
of the Revised Penal Code, rape
penalty to the maximum period.[
through force, threat or intimidation
of a woman 12 years or over in age is
punished by reclusion perpetua.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal

Code prescribes the penalty of