G.R. No.

L-36941 June 29, 1984

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RAFAEL SAYLAN alias PAEL, accused-appellant

FACTS:

Rafael Saylan was accused of rape in the sworn complaint of Eutropia Agno but entered a plea of “not
guilty” after the trial court rendered judgment.

One afternoon, Eutropia (the victim) went to a public market in Gingoog City to buy foodstuffs for her
family and to fetch her 5-year old daughter. On their way home they boarded a jeepney along with
other passengers including the accused. The jeepney arrived at the Malinas citrus farm, the end
destination and every passenger alighted and had to walk all the way to barrio Malinao. The passengers
separate into 2 groups and the accused joined the victim’s group and walked up until they reach a trail
for carabaos. The accused, while walking side-by-side with the victim suddenly pulled out a dagger
pointing to the victim threatening her. At this point, the accused grabbed the victim while still pointing
the dagger and dragged her to a creek near a coconut tree. The accused then ordered the victim to
remove her panty but at first the victim resisted, but accused threatened to kill her, so she removed her
panty after which the accused ordered her to lie down. Subsequently, accused placed himself on top of
the victim and succeeded on doing the sexual intercourse. After the first intercourse, accused ordered
the victim to stand up and did the intercourse again. Unsatisfied with the second, the victim ordered the
accused to stand up and then he bent her body downwards with her hands and knees resting on the
ground. At this point, accused put himself behind the victim and executed the sexual intercourse the
way dogs do. The intercourse went further up to a fifth instance. The accused only let go of the victim
when the victim promised to accused not to tell her husband what he did to her.

ISSUE:

1. WON the accused’s offense of rape was attended by aggravating circumstances of: abuse of
superior strength, nighttime, uninhabited place, ignominy and reiteracion.

HELD:

The trial court disregarded superiority because it "is inherent in the crime of rape or is absorbed in the
element of force." It also did not consider nocturnity "there being no evidence that the accused
purposely sought it to facilitate the commission of the rape.

Despoblado was present according to the trial court because: "The accused dragged the offended party,
at the point of a dagger, to the carabao trail, about 10 meters from the junction, but 40 to 50 meters
below to better attain his purpose without interference, and to better secure himself from detection
and punishment . Even the junction where the two children were left is already 400 meters from the
nearest house. While there maybe occasional passersby, this does not destroy its being an uninhabited
place. We hold that the trial court for the reasons stated correctly held that the crime was committed in
an uninhabited place.

The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary
position, i.e. male superior female inferior, but also "The same position as dogs do" i.e., entry from
behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy because "The studies of many experts in the matter
have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in
the act of copulation. This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not
otherwise.

The trial court also held that "there is no reiteracion because one of the offenses, namely Robbery in
Band, for which the accused has been penal was committed after the commission of this rape case, and
the penalty imposed on the other offense of Frustrated Homicide, is lighter than the penalty for rape.

COURT RULING:

The judgment under review is modified in the sense that the appellant shall suffer the penalty
ofreclusion perpetua instead of death and the indemnity to be paid to the offended party is increased to
P20,000.00. Costs against the appellant.