You are on page 1of 2

People v.

Alvin Abulon - Anti Rape Act

- This is an automatic review of the decision by the CA affirming with modification the
decision of the RTC of Santa Cruz.

Accused was the father of the complainant, on March 14 and 15 acccused raped his 13
year old daughter and on the 16th of March accused committed acts of lasciviousness to the
complainant. On the first two instance the accused came home drunk and while the complainant
was asleep together with her siblings the accused would then slowly sneak in and the next thing
his daughter would know is that he's on top of her and has gone naked and ready to commit the
crime of rape. On the third instance wherein the complainant upon removal of her
undergarments by the accused, the penis has not been inserted instead the accused kissed the
private parts of the victim thus, the charge was acts of lasciviousness. Prosecution presented as
witness the 6-year old brother of the victim, which corroborated the information provided by the
victim in which the father upon the commission of the crime also had a knife pointed at the
victim and as well as on her siblings and threatened her that if she would report such instance to
the authorities he would kill them. However, accused denied such commission with an alibi that
on the first instance he was not at home and such he could not commit the crime and in the
second and third instance he said that he was only sleeping together with his children at that

RTC held that in view of the evidence presented the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit 2 counts of qualified rape which was punishable by
death and acts of lasciviousness.

Since death penalty was the punishment imposed this case was automatically reviewed by the
Court of Appeals wherein it affirmed the penalty imposed by the RTC however modified the
damages awarded to the victim.

Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification
- Accused-appellant assails that the trial court committed grave error in giving credence
and weight to the testimony of the victim.
- Accused-appellant assails that the information against him are defective as the failed
to allege the key element of force and/or intimidation.

- In rape cases, the conviction or the acquittal of the accused most often depends on
the credibility of the complainants testimony. By the very nature of the crime, it is generally
unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. When a rape victims testimony is
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND MARKED WITH CONSISTENCY despite the grueling examination, it
deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone
testimony is sufficient to sustain conviction.
Furthermore SC discussed that in People v. Gutierrez, "Complainants failure to
immediately report the rape case does not diminish her credibility. The silence of the victim of
rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time
does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is uncommon for young girls to
conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapists threat on their lives,
more so when the offender is someone whom she know and who was living with her."
- Even if the elements of force and/or intimidation were not so well-established, the
rule that force and/or intimidation need not be proven in incestuous cases. The overpowering
moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance
ordinarily required in rape cases where the accused is unrelated to the victim.
-Upon review and on careful scrutiny of the third crime committed as OSG wanted the
charge to still be rape and not acts of lasciviousness, however the two courts decided otherwise.
Upon SCs review it discussed R.A. 8353 which is the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 wherein the concept
of rape was revolutionized with that the crime should include sexual violence on the women’s
sex-related orifices other than her organ and be expanded as well to cover gender-free rape. THE

In People v. Silvano, the court recognized that the fathers insertion of his tongue and
finger to his daughters vaginal orifice would have subjected him to liability for instrument or
object rape, had the new law been in effect already at the time he committed the acts. Similarly,
in People v. Miranda , the court observed that appellants insertion of his fingers into the
complainants organ would have constituted rape by sexual assault had it been committed when
the new law was already in effect.
- Thus, in view of the two kinds or modes of committing rape, (in paragraph 1 through sexual
intercourse and in paragraph 2 by sexual assault) the first mode is not necessarily included in the
second mode since it has its own material differences. Since the third charge and which the OSG
pushed as "should have been Rape and not acts of lasciviousness" should be taken otherwise,
since what was allege on the third count was "rape through carnal knowledge". And appellant
cannot be found guilty of Rape by sexual assault although it was proven, since doing such would
be in violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. However Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure allows the appellant to be found guilty of the lesser crime of Acts of
Lasciviousness since such acts is necessarily included in the commission of Rape.

- Since Death Penalty can no longer be imposed, penalty has been downgraded to
Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole, and had the civil liability modified as well.

TN guys the prosecution charged the accused with 3 counts of qualified rape however the third
count since it was committed through sexual assault in view of R.A. 8353, the third charge of
qualified rape was just downgraded to acts of lasciviousness. Despite there were proofs that
sexual assault was committed but in the written allegation the charge was "rape through carnal
knowledge" and changing such would violate the right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.