You are on page 1of 38

Anice Salvi Z. Yumul.

4F Legal Medicine
1. People vs Orita

G.R. No. 88724

April 3, 1990


The accused, Ceilito Orita alias Lito, was charged with the crime of rape in Criminal
Case No. 83-031-B before the Regional Trial Court, Branch II, Borongan, Eastern

Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman student at the St.
Joseph's College at Borongan, Eastern Samar. Appellant was a Philippine
Constabulary (PC) soldier.

In the early morning of March 20, 1983, complainant arrived at her boarding house.
Her classmates had just brought her home from a party. Shortly after her classmates
had left, she knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of a sudden, somebody
held her and poked a knife to her neck. She then recognized appellant who was a
frequent visitor of another boarder.

She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her to go upstairs with him. Since
the door which led to the first floor was locked from the inside, appellant forced
complainant to use the back door leading to the second floor. With his left arm wrapped
around her neck and his right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, appellant dragged
complainant up the stairs. When they reached the second floor, he commanded her to
look for a room. With the Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered
complainant's room.

Upon entering the room, appellant pushed complainant who hit her head on the wall.
With one hand holding the knife, appellant undressed himself. He then ordered
complainant to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt. Then he pulled off
her bra, pants and panty. He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted
her. He made her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. She followed his order as
he continued to poke the knife to her. At said position, however, appellant could not
fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept on moving.

Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In this
position, only a small part again of his penis was inserted into her vagina. At this stage,
appellant had both his hands flat on the floor. Complainant was able to escape by
jumping through a window of the next room.

Meanwhile, the policemen brought complainant to the Eastern Samar Provincial

Hospital where she was physically examined.

Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude, the resident physician who examined complainant, issued a
Medical Certificate (Exhibit "A") which states:
Physical Examination — Patient is fairly built, came in with loose clothing with no
under-clothes; appears in state of shock, per unambulatory.

PE Findings — Pertinent Findings only.

Neck- — Circumscribed hematoma at Ant. neck.

Breast — Well developed, conical in shape with prominent nipples; linear abrasions
below (L) breast.

Back — Multiple pinpoint marks.

Extremities — Abrasions at (R) and (L) knees.

Vulva — No visible abrasions or marks at the perineal area or over the

vulva, errythematous (sic) areas noted surrounding vaginal orifice, tender, hymen
intact; no laceration fresh and old noted; examining finger can barely enter and with
difficulty; vaginal canal tight; no discharges noted.

ISSUE: Is the accused properly convicted of frustrated rape?

HELD: No, it should be consummated rape. There is carnal knowledge with the use of
force or intimidation. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has
carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment
also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more
is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to
produce the crime.Thus, the felony is consummated. We have set the uniform rule that
for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of
the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female
organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant

The alleged variance between the testimony of the victim and the medical certificate
does not exist. On the contrary, it is stated in the medical certificate that the vulva was
erythematous (which means marked by abnormal redness of the skin due to capillary
congestion, as in inflammation) and tender. It bears emphasis that Dr. Zamora did not
rule out penetration of the genital organ of the victim. He merely testified that there was
uncertainty whether or not there was penetration. Anent this testimony, the victim
positively testified that there was penetration, even if only partially (pp. 302, 304, t.s.n.,
May 23, 1984):

The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the
sole basis of the victim's testimony if credible.

2. People vs Dela Pena

G.R. No. 104947

June 30, 1994

FACTS: At the time of the alleged rape, Erly Rose P. Marasigan was a nine (9) year old
third-grade student of a public elementary school in Mayasan, Valenzuela, Metro
Manila. On school days, she would take a shortcut using an alley between her school
and her home in order to attend her classes between 12:00 noon and 5:00 p.m. On
July 18, 1991, the day of the alleged incident, while traversing this route, she noticed a
man standing at a corner of the alley, whom she later on identified as the
defendant-appellant, Gilbert de la Peña. As she passed by, he grabbed her left arm
with both of his hands, pulled her towards a grassy area and threatened bodily harm if
she would not keep quiet. 1

The accused-appellant ordered Erly Rose to lie down. He then pulled his pants and
briefs down, removed her panties and raised her skirt. He kissed her and attempted to
insert his penis into her vagina to no avail. According to the testimonies of both the
complainant and the accused-appellant, he did not have an erection and was unable to
insert his penis into her vagina. Failing in this, the accused-appellant instead fondled
his victim's vagina and inserted his finger into the vaginal orifice. 2

During the process, de la Peña hit his victim in the stomach and on both cheeks with
his fist. Erly Rose cried, then tried to play dead. The accused appellant thereafter
hurriedly fled the scene. 3

Pursuant to a written request for a medical examination by the Valenzuela Police, she
was subsequently examined by Dr. Lowella Nario of the National Bureau of
Investigation who found no physical evidence of penetration during her examination of
the victim. According to Dr. Nario, there was no sign
of injury on the victim's private parts. The vagina was normal, without a reddening. 6

An information signed by the state prosecutor, dated 30 July 1991, charged the
accused with the crime of ATTEMPTED RAPE based on the complaint affidavit of the
victim.7 However, a criminal complaint signed by the state prosecutor subsequently
charged the accused with STATUTORY RAPE, committed as follows:8

In his brief, the appellant contends that a surfeit of the evidence presented at trial
negates a finding of Statutory Rape. He avers that the victim, Erly Rose Marasigan,
during direct examination, herself testified that no penetration had occurred, that the
medico-legal examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation yielded
negative results, and that there was an attempt, but that no carnal knowledge had
actually occurred.

ISSUE: What is the stage of the rape?

HELD: Attempted rape only. Settled is the rule that full penetration of the vaginal orifice
is not an essential ingredient in the commission of the crime of rape. The mere
touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act
constitutes carnal knowledge.When accomplished together with the other elements
defined in the Revised Penal Code, the offense constitutes rape.

It is likewise settled that the absence of physical findings on medical examination does
not negate a finding that carnal knowledge had actually occurred. The absence of
seminal, fluid, spermatozoa, abrasions, lacerations, hematoma etc., around the genital
area or the presence of an intact hymen does not automatically lead to a conclusion
that no act of rape had occurred or that the act was in fact consensual. In fact, the
absence of a medical certificate is not indispensable in the crime of rape.However, our
decisions finding a case for rape even if the attacker's penis merely touched the
external portions of the female genitalia were made in the context of the presence of
the existence of an erectile penis capable of full penetration.
In the case at bench, the victim, Erly Rose P. Marasigan categorically stated on at least
two occasions that the accused-appellant was unable to consummate the act of rape.

In the instant case, both the victim and the accused-appellant were in agreement in
their trial court testimonies that no penetration had occurred. Rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman.The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape as
provided for in Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code is carnal knowledge
of a woman below 12 years old. In the case at bench, there was an attempt, which the
accused-appellant does not deny, but carnal knowledge did not actually occur.


G.R No. 129433
March 30, 2000


On 25 April 1996, at around 4p.m., Ma. Corazon Pamintuan, the mother of four year
old Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from the second floor of their house to prepare
Milo chocolate drinks for her two (2) children.Primo was the helper of Corazon’s
brother, Conrado Plata, Jr.

As Corazon was busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry
“Ayo’ko, ayo’ko!” prompting Corazon to rush upstairs. Thereupon, she saw Primo
inside her children’s room kneeling before Chrysthel whose pajamas or “jogging
pants” and panty were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees.
According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Chrysthel’s vagina. She
cursed the accused, “P – t – ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!” and boxed the accused several
times. He evaded and pulled up his pants; he pushed her when she tried to block his
path. Corazon then ran out for help. Her brother, cousin and an uncle chased Primo
and eventually held him at the back of their compound until they decided to turn him
over to the barangay officials. Physical examination of the victim yielded negative
results: No evident sign of extra genital physical injury was noted by the medico-legal
officer. Chrysthel’s hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5cm in diameter.


Whether the acts of the accused Campuhan constitute attempted or consummated


HELD: ATTEMPTED RAPE. In Orita we held that rape was consummated from the
moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his
objective. All the elements of the offense were already present and nothing more was
left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to produce the
crime and accomplish it. We ruled then that perfect penetration was not essential; any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, was sufficient. The
Court further held that entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, was sufficient to warrant conviction
for consummated rape. We distinguished consummated rape from attempted rape
where there was no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution
were performed as the offender merely commenced the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts. The inference that may be derived therefrom is that complete or
full penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. Any
penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the crime to its consummated
Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted
when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the
elements of attempted rape - and only of attempted rape - are present in the instant
case, hence, the accused should be punished only for it.

4. People vs Aldana

G.R. No. 81817

July 27, 1989


Stephanie B. Hutchison, a thirteen and one half (13 1/2) year old high school student,
and Bernard Aldana, an eighteen (18) year old college student, were neighbors since
1982 in Talaba, Bacoor, Cavite. Their respective two-storey houses were only two to
three meters apart. The accused started to court Stephanie in early 1984, but she
refused to be his girlfriend.

On August 19, 1984, at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning, Stephanie was awakened
from her sleep and felt the presence of someone inside her bedroom (a room she
shared with her mother) located on the second floor of the house. She was about to
scream when the accused covered her mouth with his right hand and pointed a knife at
her. Despite her resistance, the accused succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
her. Having accomplished what he came for, the accused stood up, put on his briefs
and left through the ungrilled window of the room from which three slats of glass
jalousies had been earlier removed by him to gain entry into the room.

Dr. Reyes testified and submitted a report concluding that although there were genital
findings compatible with sexual intercourse with a man on or about the alleged date of
commission, there was no evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on
Stephanie at the time of examination.

On the other hand, the defense sought to establish the innocence of the accused by
proving that he and Stephanie were sweethearts and that, by mutual consent, they
developed a sexually intimate relationship.

Accused claimed that soon after Stephanie accepted his offer of love on June 4, 1984,
Stephanie suggested to Bernard that since her mother infrequently went home from
work, they should see each other in her bedroom. Stephanie told him that she would
remove three slats of the ungrilled jalousie window so that he could enter the room.
The accused agreed to the plan. Thus, on four subsequent occasions, the accused
climbed into Stephanie's room at around midnight, and the couple would spend about
an hour talking and caressing each other.

On August 11, 1984, the accused and Stephanie had sexual intercourse for the first
time. On two more occasions, August 13 and 15, the accused returned to her room and
the young lovers made love .In the early morning of the 18th of August, as Bernard
once again entered her room, Stephanie warned him that her maid was sleeping in the
room with her. But as he was about to leave, the maid woke up and turned on the lights
of the room. The maid asked him what he was doing, and he revealed that he was
there at Stephanie's invitation. The accused then hurriedly left the room.

ISSUE: Is the accused guilty of rape?

HELD : No, he should be acquitted.The evidentiary rule is that in crimes against

chastity "when the conviction depends on any vital point upon her (the alleged victim's)
uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor
are free from suspicion.

It is worth noting that Stephanie categorically declared on several occasions that the
accused never took away his right hand from her mouth, thus preventing her from
screaming for help, nor loosened the grip of his left hand on his knife poised at her right
side until after he had raped her . Testimony to be believed must not only proceed
from a credible witness, but must itself be credible. No better test has yet been found to
determine the value of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge
and common experience of mankind. Considering the degree of resistance the alleged
victim purportedly made and the very peculiar position assumed by the accused all
throughout the incident, i.e. his body pressed down on the left side of her body, his
right hand covering her mouth and his left hand holding a knife at her side (notably the
same hand which was used to unclothe her, to remove his briefs and to hold her feet
down), the Court finds incredible the claim that the accused was able to penetrate her
as she described. Unless the accused were an adept contortionist of extraordinary
strength and virility, which he was not shown to be, or the alleged victim were
paralyzed with fear, which her testimonies on direct and cross examination refute,
Stephanie's version of the incident fails the test of common knowledge and

Moreover, Stephanie's admission that she did not use her unrestrained left arm and
hand either to pull the hair of the accused or to box him when he mounted her betrays
a significant inconsistency in her testimony .

Stephanie testified that the accused neither held nor pinned down her left arm and
hand. Yet she admitted that she only used her left arm and hand to ward off the
accused as he was pressing her down on the bed and removing her pants and panty .
She claimed that she ceased using her left arm and hand to fight the accused because
she feared that he would harm her with his knife. But this explanation is not consistent
with her claim that she unwaveringly struggled and fought the accused by kicking his
feet and legs, and by swaying her torso from side to side, even as he penetrated her
and notwithstanding the knife pointed at her side. At any rate, this inexplicable
inconsistency casts serious doubt on the veracity of the alleged victim's testimony.

Finally, Stephanie's conduct after the alleged rape incident does not correspond with
the normal reaction of a victim of this hideous crime.

If indeed Stephanie were a victim of rape through force and intimidation, why would
she continue to sleep alone in the very same room where she was forcibly violated?
The normal reaction of a thirteen (13) year old victim, especially one who had not
confided to anyone that she was raped, would have been to avoid that room which
would remind her of the disturbing incident and trigger overwhelming fright and

There are also pieces of evidence that Stephanie wrote letters to the accused using
her nickname Apple. Another letter was sent using nicknames for papa and mama just
in case the letter will be intercepted. Another letter warning the accused that the
complainant’s mother is sleeping in her room.

1. People vs Erina
G.R. No. L-26298
Date: January 20, 1927

The victim of the crime was a child of 3 years and 11 months old and the evidence is
conclusive that the defendant endeavored to have carnal intercourse with her, but
there may be some doubt whether he succeeded in penetrating the vagina before
being disturbed by the timely intervention of the mother and the sister of the child.
The physician who examined the genital organ of the child a few hours after the
commission of the crime found a slight inflammation of the exterior parts of the organ,
indicating that an effort had been made to enter the vagina, but in testifying before the
court he expressed doubts as to whether the entry had been effected.
The mother of the child testified that she found its genital organ covered with a sticky
substance, but that cannot be considered conclusive evidence of penetration.
It has been suggested that the child was of such tender age that penetration was
impossible; that the crime of rape consequently was impossible of consummation; and
that, therefore, the offense committed should be treated only as abusos deshonestos
(abuse of confidence) being that the accused is a guest in the house of the victim.

Issue: Is Erina guilty of consummated rape?

Held : No. There being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of
the offended party, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and can only be
found guilty of frustrated rape, but in view of the fact that he was living in the house of
the parents of the child as their guest, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence existed and the penalty must therefore be imposed in its maximum


G. R. No. 143468-71
January 24, 2003
Callejo, Sr., J.:

Rose Orillosa, mother of the victim, Analia Orillosa, met the accused in 1994, they
decided to live together as husband and wife at No. 1252 Jose Abad Santos Street,
Moriones, Tondo, Manila. Rose had three children with her Analia, Jepsy and Rossel
from her first marriage.

Sometime in 1996, Analia was in her room when accused-appellant

entered. He laid on top of her, removed her T-shirt and underwear. He then inserted
his finger in her vagina. He removed his finger and inserted his penis in her
vagina. Momentarily, she felt a sticky substance coming out from his penis. She also
felt pain in her sex organ. Satiated, accused-appellant dismounted but threatened to
kill her if she divulged to anyone what he did to her. Accused-appellant then returned
to his room. The incident lasted less than one hour. Petrified by the threats on her life,
Analia kept to herself what happened to her
Sometime in August 1997, accused-appellant entered again the room of
Analia, placed himself on top of her and held her legs and arms. He then inserted his
finger into her sex organ (fininger niya ako). Satiated, accused-appellant left the
room. During the period from 1996 to 1998, accused-appellant sexually abused private
complainant two times a week.

On November 5, 1998, at about 3:00 p.m., Analia was in the sala of their house
studying her assignments. Accused-appellant was also in the sala. Rossel tended the
video shop while his mother was away. Analia went into her room and lay down in
bed. She did not lock the door of the room because her brother might enter any
time. She wanted to sleep but found it difficult to do so. Accused-appellant went to his
room next to the room of Analia. He, however, entered the room of Analia. He was
wearing a pair of short pants and was naked from waist up. Analia did not mind
accused-appellant entering her room because she knew that her brother, Rossel was
around. However, accused-appellant sat on the side of her bed, placed himself on top
of her, held her hands and legs and fondled her breasts. She struggled to extricate
herself. Accused-appellant removed her panty and touched her sex
organ. Accused-appellant inserted his finger into her vagina, extricated it and then
inserted his penis into her vagina. Accused-appellant ejaculated. Analia felt pain in her
sex organ. Momentarily, Rossel passed by the room of Analia after drinking water from
the refrigerator, and peeped through the door. He saw accused-appellant on top of
Analia. Accused-appellant saw Rossel and dismounted.Accused-appellant berated
Rossel and ordered him to go to his room and sleep. Rossel did. Accused-appellant
then left the room. Analia likewise left the room, went out of the house and stayed
outside for one hour. Rose arrived home at 6:00 p.m. However, Analia did not divulge
to her mother what accused-appellant had just done to her.

On November 10, 1998, the Rose and Analia proceeded to the Western Police
District where Analia gave her Affidavit-Complaint to PO1 Carmelita Nocum in the
presence of SPO2 Fe H. Avindante. She related to the police investigator that
accused-appellant had touched her breasts and arms in August, 1998, September 15,
1998, October 22, 1998 and on November 5, 1998, at 3:00 p.m. Analia then submitted
herself to genitalia examination by Dr. Armie Umil, a medico-legal officer of the
NBI. The medico-legal officer interviewed Analia, told him that she was raped in May,
1997 at 3:00 p.m. and November 5, 1998 at 3:00 p.m. The medical result indicated that
the hymen of the victim was still intact.

The trial court found the accused guilty of 4 counts of qualified rape and
sentenced him to DEATH PENALTY in each and every case.


Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged


Yes however only for simple rape because the qualifying circumstances of
relationship and minority were not alleged. The Supreme Court found the accused
guilty of 3 counts of simple rape and 1 count of attempted rape.

The barefaced fact that private complainant remained a virgin up to 1998 does
not preclude her having been repeatedly sexually abused by accused-appellant. The
private complainant being of tender age, it is possible that the penetration of the male
organ went only as deep as her labia. Whether or not the hymen of private
complainant was still intact has no substantial bearing on accused-appellants
commission of the crime. Even the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ
or the mere entry of the penis into the aperture constitutes consummated rape. It is
sufficient that there be entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum.

The last incident was only an attempted rape. There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all
the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;

2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;

3. The offenders act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;

4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other
than his spontaneous desistance.

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;

(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

In light of the facts established by the prosecution, we believe that accused-appellant

intended to have carnal knowledge of private complainant. The overt acts of
accused-appellant proven by the prosecution were not mere preparatory acts. By the
series of his overt acts, accused-appellant had commenced the execution of rape
which, if not for his spontaneous desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape. Although
accused-appellant desisted from performing all the acts of execution however his
desistance was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of the
sudden and unexpected arrival of Rossel. Hence, accused-appellant is guilty only of
attempted rape.

3. People vs. Orande

G.R. Nos. 141724-27
November 12, 2013

Facts: The Accused is the step father of Jessica. They live in a 2-storey house in
Paco, Manila owned by the family of Jessica’s Mother. They occupied a room on the
ground floor which served as their bedroom. The 1st rape (declared by RTC Manila as
frustrated) – the incident happened when Jessica’s mother was selling fish at the
Paco Market. Jessica was watching T.V. while siblings were sleeping. Accused
grabbed her right hand and lasciviously jabbed her palm with his finger. He ordered
her to undress, which she obeyed out of fear because accused was holding a knife.
Accused placed himself on top of complainant. Jessica felt pain in her vagina and saw
it smeared with blood and semen. She was threatened by death if she told her
Mother. She was 9 yrs. and 4 mos. old that time. 2nd rape- still minor, same
circumstances. 3rd rape – simple rape, same circumstances, siblings ordered by
accused to play outside. 4th rape – siblings were asleep, in the same room.

Jessica told her teacher, the teacher told Jessica’s Aunt. The Aunt accompanied
Jessica to the PGH Child Protection Unit, the examination showed a healed hymenal
tear. The defense of the accused is denial and alibi. In the 2nd incident, he was driving
his pedicab. Mother testified that in 1st and 2nd incident, accused was with him to buy
fish for selling. Mother testified that Jessica did not approve of her relationship with
the stepfather so she had motive to falsely accuse of rape.

RTC Manila convicted accused of : 1 count of Statutory Rape, 1 count of Frustrated

Rape, and 2 counts of Simple Rape. Accused appeals directly to SC the 1. Finding of
guilt and the 2. Finding of frustrated rape despite the fact that under prevailing
jurisprudence there is no such crime.

Issue: Can there be a crime of frustrated rape?

Held: No, the judgment is modified to 2 counts of Statutory and 2 counts of Simple
Rape, there being no frustrated rape in this jurisdiction. It was error for RTC to convict
of frustrated rape, taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution
of the crime of Rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the
frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed. The uniform rule that for the
consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the
female organ is sufficient. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of
the female organ because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender
merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.

Besides, the rape in this case was consummated. Although penetration is not
successful, rape is consummated when the victim felt pain, or the hymenal tags are
no longer visible. In this case, the victim felt pain and his vagina bled, thus rape is
consummated. The accused cannot be convicted of Death, because the relation of
the offender as common-law spouse of mother is not alleged in information. Accused
is convicted of 2 counts Simple, and 2 counts Statutory Rape.

4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRESENCIO

TABUGOCA, accused-appellant
G.R. No. 125334
January 28, 1998

FACTS: Two informations were simultaneously filed on January 20, 1995 in the
RTC-Branch 18 of Ilagan, Isabela. Accused-appellant was accused of raping his
daughters in two separate incidents.

Jacqueline testified that she and her three younger sisters, Janet, Jinky and Jewel,
lived under the sole care of their father after their mother died on August 28, 1991.
While she and her sisters were sleeping in their house at Barangay Roxas, Naguilian,
Isabela at around 10 o'clock in the evening of March 28, 1992, she was roused by her
father who asked her to scratch his back. It turned out, however, that
accused-appellant had other intentions that night aside from relief from his itchy
While Jacqueline was thus scratching her father's back, he told her to stay and wait for
a while. Without any intimation, accused-appellant then removed her shorts and
underwear and made her lie down beside him. Jacqueline could only cry at this point.
As soon as she was completely disrobed, accused-appellant inserted his penis into her
vagina. With his manhood Accused-appellant warned her not to tell anyone of his
dastardly act if she would not want to be harmed (makaala ka kaniak). Complainant
was so petrified
with fear that she did not even dare ask her father why he was sexually molesting her.
Jacqueline was twelve years and three months old at the time of the incident, she
having been born on December 27, 1979. Jacqueline harbored ill-feelings against her
father, and she reportedly became the object of gossip by her classmates in school.
However, she did not tell anyone about her ordeal at the hands of her own father until
she learned that the same misfortune had befallen her sister, Jinky.

In Criminal Case No. 2387, complainant Jinky declared in the court below that her
father tried to rape her in the early morning of December 9, 1994. While she was
cleaning some articles in their house, accused-appellant approached her and then
took off his clothes. He then ordered Jinky to lie down and he removed her shorts and
panty. Thereafter, he inserted his penis into her vagina. Jinky cried and complained to
her father that she was in pain. Accused-appellant explained that it is ordinary to feel
pain because it was her first time to experience coitus. After a while, he did not persist
anymore in his sexual pursuit. Appellant lay down beside Jinky and told her that they
will continue the following day. At dawn of December 10, 1994, accused-appellant
made another attempt to carnally molest Jinky. This time, however, Jinky resisted,
thereby causing appellant to just lie down and leave her alone. Jinky was only 12 years
and nine months old at the time of the incident, she having been born on March

While Jacqueline and Jinky were watching television at their grandmother's house
nearby, Jinky confided to her grandmother about the sexual abuses of her father
against her. Upon hearing the revelations of her sister, Jacqueline also disclosed to
her grandmother her own experience with her father two years before. The victims'
grandmother, Perlita Alejandro, forthwith brought her granddaughters to the police
authorities and then to the Municipal Health Officer of Naguilian for physical

In Criminal Case No. 2386, the findings were as follows:


1. PE findings: essentially normal except for the anxiety that the victim exhibited

2. Internal Examination : multiple healed lacerations/scars at 3, 5, 6 and 9 o'clock

positions of the hymen. : introitus admits two fingers with ease. . . no other findings
noted . . .


Impression : The above findings suggest that the victim was forcibly abused and the
incident, the first one happened long ago based on the healed scars of the hymen.

While in Criminal Case No. 2387, the medico-legal found that:

1. The vulva is edematous although the hymen is intact. . . . no other findings
noted . . . .


The above findings suggest that full penetration was not successful although
attempts were done based on the swelling vulva of the victim.

Dr. Fontanares explained that the lacerations found on Jacqueline's hymen were the
result of sexual intercourse which happened approximately on the date alleged. She
added that, aside from the swelling of Jinky's labia, she also found out that they were
tender and reddish.

Jacqueline executed a criminal complaint for rape against accused-appellant, while

Jinky charged accused-appellant with frustrated rape in her own criminal complaint.

Accused-appellant raised the defense of his having been completely unaware of what
transpired on March 28, 1992 and on December 9, 1994 as he was very drunk on
those occasions.

With regard to the complaint of Jinky, accused-appellant similarly declared in the lower
court that he drank liquor in their house on December 9, 1994, Again, he claimed that
he could not recollect the ensuing events after he had finished drinking. He was
allegedly merely in formed by the arresting policemen on December 10, 1994 that
Jinky was accusing him of attempted rape.

Accused-appellant's pretext that he could not remember the events of March 28, 1992
and December 4, 1994. He claimed exemption from criminal liability on the ground of
insanity brought about by intoxication, invoking therefor some dicta in American

ISSUES: Whether or not the accused-appellant can claim exemption from criminal
liability on the ground of insanity brought about by intoxication.
Is he liable for rape?

HELD: On the first issue no. The law presumes every man to be sane. A person
accused of a crime who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity has necessarily
the consequent burden of proving it. Further, in order that insanity may be taken as an
exempting circumstance, there must be complete depreciation of intelligence in the
commission of the act or that the accused acted without the least discernment. Mere
abnormality of his mental faculties does not preclude imputability. Accused-appellant
has utterly failed to overthrow the presumption of sanity. The defense did not present
any expert witness, any psychiatric evaluation report, or any psychological findings or
evidence regarding his mental condition at the time of the commission of the offenses.
Accused-appellant's charade of amnesia is evidently a desperate gambit for
exculpation. Yet, amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is
shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his
action and that it was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental
condition of the accused when the crime was performed.

He also posits that he cannot be prosecuted for rape in Criminal Case No. 2386
because the criminal complaint of Jinky only accuses him of frustrated rape. With such
a charge, he argues that the trial court's jurisdiction to punish him is limited only to said
offense and cannot cover consummated rape. This is a meritless argument.

On the second issue, he is liable for rape.

It is axiomatic in criminal law that in order to sustain a conviction for rape, full
penetration of the female genital organ is not required. It is enough that there is proof of
the entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.
Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen, suffices to warrant conviction for rape. The rupture of the
hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a
conviction for rape. Thus, a finding that the victim's hymen is intact and has no sign of
laceration does not negate a finding that rape was committed. Jinky, being young and
unschooled in the ways of the law, may have entertained the notion that complete
penile penetration is necessary when she declared that her father only attempted to
rape her. She was, of course, not in any position to legally distinguish consummated
from attempted rape.

Two forms of intimidation under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code were
recognized in Matrimonio, that is (1) threats and (2) overpowering moral influence.
Accused-appellant exercised such moral influence over herein complainants. Being
the victims' father, accused-appellant had that moral ascendancy and influence over
his daughters which, in itself, was sufficient to intimidate and force them to submit to
his desires.

For rape to exist it is not necessary that the intimidation employed be so great or of
such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the intimidation be
sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Intimidation
must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of rape and
not by any hard and fast rule. It is therefore enough that it produces fear — fear that if
the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would
happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she
reports the incident. Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle
which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker. If Jinky had consented to
the sexual intercourse, she would have kept it to herself and not denounce it
immediately as rape. Jinky's crying during the sexual act, and her evasion of her
father's advances the following day, belie his pretense that she voluntarily participated
in the intercourse.

Republic Act No. 7659 has added seven more attendant circumstances which, in effect
also create other variants of "qualified" rape punishable with the single indivisible
penalty of death. In line with the immediately preceding observation, the presence of
ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances would be of no moment since the
death penalty shall be imposed regardless of the number of any of them. The only
possible basis for a reduction of such penalty under the rules for graduating penalties
under the Code is the presence of a privileged mitigating circumstance. it used to be
the accepted doctrine that in crimes against chastity, such as rape, relationship was
always aggravating.55 However, among the "qualifying" circumstances introduced by
Republic Act No. 7659 is the situation when the victim is under eighteen years of age
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. Obviously, in such a factual milieu, relationship having been used
as an element in that "qualified" form of rape, the same circumstance cannot be used
again to aggravate the penalty to be imposed on the offender.
In the case at bar, therefore, relationship cannot be applied as an aggravating
circumstance. However, we are persuaded to affirm the attendance of intoxication as
an aggravating circumstance on the additional finding that it was habitual on the part of
accused-appellant. Indeed, he admitted in his memorandum57that he took liquor to
forget the memory of his wife ever since she died on August 28, 1991. Such admission,
together with the declarations of his daughters and his own testimony in court that he
was also inebriated on the two occasions when he separately raped the victims,
reasonably yields the inference that accused-appellant was a habitual drunkard.


G.R. No. 130210.

December 8, 1999

DOCTRINE: Pedophilia being dissimilar to insanity. Defendant in a criminal case who

interposes the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing that fact

Facts: On, 3 December 1996 at around 8:00 oclock in the evening Francis Bart
Fulache and his 10-year old brother Felbart went to Pier 3 to defecate. They were with
30-year old Ralph Velez Diaz, a friend Francis Bart knew from the hantakan, a gaming
place near their store. Francis then invited his brother Felbart to go with them to Pier 4
but the latter was not inclined so he went home. Francis did not return home that
evening. However when Francis still failed to show up in the afternoon of the next day
their parents got worried and started searching for him.Meanwhile, at noontime of the
same day, SPO2 Ramon Villar received a report that a body of a boy between 10 to
12 years of age was found dead at the Bulacao Bridge. The body was in a sickening
state of nudity and physical abuse. The face was covered with a big stone in an
apparent attempt to hide the body. After the routine taking of photographs the body
was brought to the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes for a post-mortem examination.
autopsy conducted by the PNP Medico-Legal Officer, Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, revealed
that the cause of death was intracranial hemorrhage, extensive, with skull fracture,
traumatic.There were, quite notably, multiple lacerations in his rectum. With respect to
the injuries in the boys rectal area, Dr. Cerna opined that a blunt instrument like a
male organ in full erection could have caused them. He claimed that in an attempt to
avoid any violation of his rectum the boy could have suffered more pain considering
his soft and tender skin and the violation would necessarily result in hemorrhage
which could cause instantaneous death.
The accused on the wake, created a spectacle of himself by reciting poems for
Francis Bart and singing the theme song from the movie The Lion King, and giving
emphasis to the word surrender. Bartolome Fulache (father) reported to the
authorities the unusual behavior of their "uninvited guest." The extra-judicial
confession made by the where accused-appellant revealed his sexual perversity by
narrating in detail how he perpetrated the ghastly crime against Francis Bart, was
however declared inadmissible by the trial court on the ground that Atty. Abellanosa
who assisted accused-appellant during the custodial investigation was not an
independent counsel of the accused as required under the Constitution.
On his part, accused-appellant sought to establish the defense of insanity by
presenting Dr. Wilson Tibayan, a government physician connected with the National
Center for Mental Health.
The doctor’s testimony however did not help accused-appellants case because
although he admitted having initially categorized accused-appellant as insane, the
doctor eventually diagnosed accused-appellant to be afflicted with pedophilia, a
mental disorder NOT synonymous with insanity. He explained that pedophilia is a
sexual disorder wherein the subject has strong, recurrent and uncontrollable sexual
and physical fantasies about children which he tries to fulfill, especially when there are
no people around. He claimed, however, that despite his affliction the subject could
distinguish right from wrong. In fact, he maintained that pedophilia could be committed
without necessarily killing the victim although injuries might be inflicted on the victim in
an effort to repel any resistance. Dr. Tibayans testimony that accused-appellant had
disclosed to him that his pedophilic acts were done in revenge as he himself as a child
was also a victim of sexual abuse. Dr. Tibayan declared that accused-appellants
affliction had a very low prognosis thus making him very dangerous to society.
ISSUE: Should the accused be convicted of rape with murder?
Should the accused be exempted from criminal liability due to pedophilia?

HELD: No, he cannot be convicted of rape since it was not alleged in the information.
He is liable however for murder since there is treachery. In the instant case,
treachery characterized the killing of 11-year old Francis Bart. Well-settled is the
doctrine that the killing of children who by reason of their tender years cannot be
expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the
manner of attack is not precisely shown. The aggravating circumstance of sodomy
or sexual abuse since it was not alleged in the information. There is no ignominy since
the rape was not to put shame before killing him rather the killing was done to
eliminate the only witness to the sexual abuse.

On the second issue, he is not insane to be exempted from criminal liability.

When accused-appellant was committed to the National Center for Mental Health, he
was not diagnosed as insane but was suffering from pedophilia. Thus, there is no
doubt in our mind that he was SANE during his two-year confinement in the center,
pedophilia being dissimilar to insanity. A defendant in a criminal case who interposes
the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing that fact, i.e., he was
insane at the very moment when the crime was committed by clear and positive


G.R. No. 199875
November 21, 2012
According to AAA’s account, she was inside her rented house together with her two (2)
children, aged 1 ½ years old and 9 months old, respectively. She then noticed that
accused Edwin Isla (Isla) was standing by the door of her kitchen. He asked her what
time her landlady would be arriving and she answered that she had no idea.

After fifteen (15) minutes, she was startled when he suddenly poked a knife on her
neck and pulled her inside the bedroom. By this time, she noticed that she had already
closed the window and the door of the living room. She pleaded and begged for mercy
but to no avail. She was warned not to shout or resist otherwise she would be stabbed.

Inside the bedroom, she was made to lie down on the floor because there was no bed.
Isla placed himself on top of her and then he removed her upper clothing. He raised
her bra, exposing her breasts and then kissed them. Eventually, he made her spread
her legs and had carnal knowledge with her in the presence of her baby. While he was
committing the dastardly act, she noticed a knife pointed at her. She also informed the
trial court that during the whole ordeal, her children were present and witnessed

When Isla stood up after raping her, she noticed that the knife he was holding was
already bloodstained. At this point, she found out that she was stabbed with the knife.
She tried to take hold of the knife while shouting for help. In response, Isla struck her
the second time, this time, under her lower left breast. She also sustained a wound on
her palm while trying to disarm him. Then the knife fell to the floor. It was at this
moment that she was able to get hold of it and she threw it outside through a broken
window in the room. Thereafter, Isla scampered out of the house through the

In a little while, a neighbor came knocking at the door and was able to see AAA’s
condition. She was taken to the East Avenue Medical Center (EAMC) for medical
attention and was confined there for five (5) days.

At the hospital, Dr. Freyra conducted an examination on AAA. Based on her findings,
AAA sustained eleven (11) body injuries, two (2) of which were stab wounds, six (6)
incised wounds and two (2) contusions. The stab wounds required medical attendance
of not less than 30 days. An examination of AAA’s sexual organ showed congestions
and abrasion in the labia minora and yielded negative result on the presence of

AAA’s attending physician, Dr. Perez, on the other hand, testified that she had multiple
stab wounds on the left side of the chest. Her chest x-ray result disclosed an
accumulation of blood in the thorax which required him to conduct a procedure to drain
the blood. He concluded that the stab wounds were severe and fatal which could have
led to AAA’s death had it not been for the timely medical attendance.
As to Isla’s claim of insanity, Dr. Juan Villacorta and Dr. Mary Gomez of the National
Center for Mental Health (NCMH) were presented as qualified expert witnesses.
Dr. Villacorta testified that Isla was suffering from a major depressive disorder with
psychotic features; that he manifested psychosis on account of his hallucinations, poor
impulse control, poor judgment, and low frustration tolerance; and that he exhibited
such behavioral pattern immediately prior to being jailed. Dr. Villacorta, however, could
not say with definite certainty whether or not Isla was suffering from such mental
disorder on July 21, 1997 as there was no examination conducted on Isla on the said

To corroborate Dr. Villacorta’s findings, Dr. Gomez was presented. After a thorough
interview and psychiatric testing on Isla, she likewise observed that Isla was suffering
from a major depressive disorder which impaired his mental faculties. She opined that
such finding could not be conclusive because of lack of information from other
informants during that time.
Issue: Whether appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense.

Held: No. At the outset, this Court notes that there is no more question as to whether or
not AAA was raped by Isla. The latter never denied this fact which can be gleaned from
his direct testimony.

Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides for one of the circumstances
which will exempt one from criminal liability which is when the perpetrator of the act
was an imbecile or insane, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. This
circumstance, however, is not easily available to an accused as a successful defense.
Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. Under Article 800
of the Civil Code, the presumption is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the
exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and
convincing evidence. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused
invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not
guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must,
however, relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the
commission of the offense with which he is charged.

In the case at bench, the defense failed to overcome the presumption of sanity. The
respective testimonies of Dr. Villacorta and Dr. Gomez of the NCMH, as qualified
expert witnesses, failed to support its claim of insanity. As observed by the CA, the
mental examination on Isla taken four to six years after the incident happened in July
1997, in effect, showed that it could not be concluded with certainty that he was
suffering from such psychosis immediately before or simultaneous to the commission
of the crimes.

This Court also agrees with the observation of the RTC as affirmed by the CA that Isla
acted with discernment as can be deduced from his acts before, during and after the
commission of the crimes with which he was charged. The RTC wrote: The overt acts
committed by the accused are attributed to a criminal mind, not a lunatic. There is no
indication whatsoever that he was completely deprived of reason or discernment and
freedom of will when he stood for a while by the door of complainant’s house, then
entered it, toyed with a disconnected telephone set, and cunningly poked a knife at
complainant’s neck and dragged her inside the room where he raped her. The fact that
he first discreetly closed the door and the window before he approached and poked a
knife at complainant, then, as he laid on top of her, ordered her to undress, kissed her
breast, separated apart her legs with his own legs, and satisfied his lust, all the while
holding a knife with his right hand poked at complainant’s body, are calculated means
to ensure consummation of his lewd design. These are by no means the workings of
an imbecile, but by one engulfed by lust.
With respect to the stabbings, it appears that Isla committed two acts. The first was
while he was ravishing AAA. The Court considers this and the rape as one continuous
act, the stabbing being necessary, as far as he was concerned, for the successful
perpetration of the crime. When he testified, Isla claimed that he had to use the knife so
he could have sexual intercourse with her. The second stabbing took place after
consummation of the rape act. This second stabbing is a separate and distinct offense
as it was not a necessary means to commit the rape. It was intended to do away with
her life.
The Court, however, finds itself unable to agree that the second crime committed was
frustrated murder. In the information, it was alleged that the stabbing was committed
with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. There is,
however, nothing in the records of the case that would show the presence of the said
qualifying circumstances. For said reasons, the crime charged should have been
frustrated homicide only.
G.R. No. 178771
June 8, 2011

Facts: After the commission of the robbery of the Estrellas residence, the kidnapped
Sulacio Abad and AAA employees of Estrellas. Then the accused took Sulpacio Abad
, the driver of Estrellas, to a secluded place tied him and killed him.

AAA observed about six (6) persons enter the house, who she later identified as
accused Dick Tañedo, Marvin Lim, Bert Tañedo, a certain Fred and appellants Alberto
Anticamara alias "Al Camara," and Fernando Fernandez alias "Lando Calaguas." One
of the intruders approached her and told her not to move.

They later proceeded towards San Miguel Tarlac, where Lando Calaguas
resided. They stayed in Lando's house where they kept AAA from May 7 to May
9, 2002 On May 9, 2002, appellant Lando Calaguas told AAA that Fred and
Bert Tañedo would kill her. Lando then brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac, telling
AAA that he would leave her there as soon as Fred and Bert Tañedo leave the
place. However, once inside the hotel room, appellant Lando Calaguas
sexually molested AAA. Lando told AAA to follow what he wanted, threatening
her that he would turn her over to Fred and Bert Tañedo. After Lando raped
AAA, he brought her back to his house. Later, Fred, Bert Tañedo and Lando
Calaguas transferred AAA to Riles, Tarlac . AAA was brought to the residence
of Fred's niece, a certain Minda, where Fred kept AAA as his wife. At nighttime,
Fred would repeatedly ravish AAA, threatening her that he would give her back
to appellant Lando Calaguas who, AAA knew, killed Abad Sulpacio. She was
afraid Lando might also kill her . On May 22, 2002, Fred brought AAA to
Carnaga (should be Kananga), Leyte, together with his wife Marsha and their
children. AAA stayed in the house of Marsha's brother Sito, where she was
made as a house helper.

On June 4, 2002, AAA escaped from the house of Sito. She proceeded to
Isabel, Leyte and sought the help of her friend Susana Ilagan. After hearing
AAA's plight, Susana called AAA's brother in Cebu, who later fetched AAA in
Isabel, Leyte and brought her to Mandaue City. When they arrived in Mandaue
City, they immediately reported the incident to the police authorities. On June
23, 2002, AAA executed a Sworn Statement
Issue: On the issue of raping AAA who will be liable?
Held: The Court finds appellant Lando guilty of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, defined in and penalized under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code[39] are: (1) the offender
is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner
deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is
present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) any
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made; or (c) the person kidnapped or detained is a female.

Appellant Lando succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA through the use
of threat and intimidation. AAA testified that on May 9, 2002, appellant Lando brought
her to a hotel to hide her from Fred and Bert, who intended to kill her. Appellant Lando
told her to follow his orders, otherwise, he will give her to Fred and Bert. While in the
hotel, appellant Lando raped her.[44] Clearly, for fear of being delivered to Fred and
Bert and of losing her life, AAA had no choice but to give in to appellant Lando's lustful
assault. In rape cases, the credibility of the victim's testimony is almost always the
single most important factor. When the victim's testimony is credible, it may be the
sole basis for the accused's conviction.

However, the Court does not agree with the CA and trial court's judgment finding
appellant Al liable for Rape in Criminal Case No. 4481-R. Applying the case
of People v. Suyu, doctrine that once conspiracy is established between several
accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable
for the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless
anyone of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing

There is no evidence to prove that appellant Al was aware of the subsequent events
that transpired after the killing of Sulpacio and the kidnapping of AAA. Appellant Al
could not have prevented appellant Lando from raping AAA, because at the time of
rape, he was no longer associated with appellant Lando. AAA even testified that only
Fred and appellant Lando brought her to Tarlac,[52] and she never saw appellant Al
again after May 7, 2002, the day she was held captive. She only saw appellant Al
once more during the trial of the case.[53] Thus, appellant Al cannot be held liable for
the subsequent rape of AAA.
G.R. No. 183563
December 14, 2011

FACTS: Henry Arpon, appellant herein, was charged with eight (8) counts of rape in
separate informations
AAA was raped by her uncle, herein appellant Henry Arpon, once in 1995 when she
was 8 years old and seven more times in 1999 when she was 12 years old.
The prosecution presented the lone testimony of AAA to prove the charges against
the accused-appellant. AAA testified that she was born on November 1, 1987. In one
afternoon when she was only eight years old, she stated that the accused-appellant
raped her inside their house. She could not remember, though, the exact month and
date of the incident. The accused-appellant stripped off her shorts, panties and shirt
and went on top of her. He had his clothes on and only pulled down his zipper. He
then pulled out his organ, put it in her vagina and did the pumping motion. AAA felt
pain but she did not know if his organ penetrated her vagina. When he pulled out his
organ, she did not see any blood. She did so only when she urinated.
AAA also testified that the accused-appellant raped her again in July 1999 for five
times on different nights. The accused-appellant was then drinking alcohol with BBB,
the stepfather of AAA, in the house of AAAs neighbor. AAA further related that the
accused-appellant raped her again twice in August 1999 at nighttime. AAA said that
she did not tell anybody about the rapes because the accused-appellant threatened to
kill her mother if she did. She only filed a complaint when he proceeded to also rape
her younger sister, DDD.
The prosecution also presented as evidence the medico-legal report which contained
the results of the medical examination conducted on AAA by Dr. Rommel Capngcol
and Dr. Melissa Adel Gagala which findings stated old, healed incomplete lacerations
of the introitus.
For the defense: Appellant testified that when the first incident of rape allegedly
happened in 1995, he was only 13 years old as he was born on February 23, 1982.
Whether or not appellant is entitled to the exempting circumstance of minority
Yes, but only as to the first charge of rape committed against AAA.
It is settled that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime that
the law requires to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence
must pass the exacting test of moral certainty that the law demands to satisfy the
burden of overcoming the appellant's presumption of innocence. Thus, including the
first incident of rape, the testimony of AAA was only able to establish three instances
when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her.
In the instant case, the accused-appellant testified that he was born on February 23,
1982 and that he was only 13 years old when the first incident of rape allegedly
happened in 1995. In relation to the matter of assigning criminal responsibility,
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 is explicit in providing that:

SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. A child fifteen

(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)

years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does

not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws. (Emphases ours.)

Accordingly, for the first count of rape, which in the information in Criminal Case No.
2000-01-46 was allegedly committed in 1995, the testimony of the accused-appellant
sufficiently established that he was only 13 years old at that time. In view of the failure
of the prosecution to prove the exact date and year of the first incident of rape, i.e.,
whether the same occurred in 1995 or in 1998 as previously discussed, any doubt
therein should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the
latter. The Court, thus, exempts the accused-appellant from criminal liability for the first
count of rape pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No.
9344. The accused-appellant, nevertheless, remains civilly liable therefor.

For the second and third counts of rape that were committed in the year 1999, the
accused-appellant was already 17 years old. We likewise find that in the said
instances, the accused-appellant acted with discernment. In Madali v. People, the
Court had the occasion to reiterate that discernment is that mental capacity of a minor
to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known
and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case. In this case, the fact that the accused-appellant
acted with discernment was satisfactorily established by the testimony of AAA, which
we had already found to be credible. Verily, AAA testified that she at first did not tell
anybody about the sexual assault she suffered at the hands of the accused-appellant
because the latter told her that he would kill her mother if she did so. That the
accused-appellant had to threaten AAA in an effort to conceal his dastardly acts only
proved that he knew full well that what he did was wrong and that he was aware of the
consequences thereof.

GR No. 133872,
May 5, 2000

Alexander Taño, the accused, was charged with the special complex crime of
Robbery with Rape before RTC – Caloocan. It all started on Nov. 6, 1997, around
7:30pm. Amy De Guzman was tending the Video Rental Shop, owned by her cousin,
Ana Marinay, located in Caloocan. Hereafter, the accused came, looking for Ana’s
husband, Gerry Marinay. Amy responded to him, saying that he will arrive around
10pm of that evening. He also asked when will Ana arrive, to which she replied that
she did not know. Then, the accused left the store, only to come back moments later.
He went in and out of the store, until, on his last arrival, he came and went straight to
Amy, jumped over the counter of the shop where Amy was, and proceeded to seize
Amy while holding a knife on the other hand, poking it unto Amy’s neck. Amy started
to shout for help, but the accused, to drown Amy’s cries, increased the volume of the
Karaoke. He then dragged Amy to the kitchen of the shop, and, at knife point, ordered
Amy to undress. Once this was done, the accused started to rape her. In the process
of raping her, somebody knocked at the door, prompting the accused to stop
whatever he was doing and ordered Amy to put on her clothes. After punching her in
the stomach thrice, he was again raped.

After a while, the accused put down his knife, and as he was kissing Amy, the latter
got hold of the knife, which she surreptitiously concealed it under the stairs. The
accused then became violent again and banged Amy’s head on the wall, causing her
to be unconscious. She later regained her consciousness, finding herself inside the
toilet of the shop, only to lose her consciousness again when the accused banged her
head against the toilet bowl. The accused then went upstairs and looted the place of
valuables belonging to Ana, including her ring, bracelet, and wristwatch, earrings, and
cash money, amounting to P16,000.00. At around 9pm, Ana finally arrived and found
the shop to be in disarray, with the karaoke in full volume, and that the toilet, where
Amy was found, was bathed in blood. Ana immediately sought the help of Barangay
officials and brought Amy to the MCU Hospital. Amy was later transferred to Jose P.
Reyes Memorial Medical Center, where she was confined for 4 days.

ISSUES: Is the charge of robbery with rape as a special complex crime correct in this

HELD: No. The felony of robbery with rape contemplates a situation where the original
intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to
another and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime.

Here, accused-appellant suddenly jumped over the counter, strangled her, poked a
knife at the left side of her neck, pulled her towards the kitchen where he forced her to
undress, and gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent. Thereafter,
he ordered her to proceed upstairs to get some clothes, so he could bring her out,
saying he was not leaving her alive. At this point, appellant conceived the idea of
robbery because, before they could reach the upper floor, he suddenly pulled Amy
down and started mauling her until she lost consciousness; then he freely ransacked
the place. Leaving Amy for dead after repeatedly banging her head, first on the wall,
then on the toilet bowl, he took her bracelet, ring and wristwatch. He then proceeded
upstairs where he took as well the jewelry box containing other valuables belonging to
his victim's employer. Appellant may well be convicted of the separate offenses of rape
and robbery notwithstanding the fact that the offense charged in the Information is only
"Robbery with Rape."

10. People vs Lomerio

G.R. No. 129074.
February 28, 2000

FACTS: "On May 23, 1993, Vilma Bunagan, together with her eldest son Roberto,
went to her parents' house at Tuazon St., Marikina, Metro Manila to bring her
two-year-old son who was sick. She left behind in their Antipolo house her other five
children, namely, LEONILA (victim), Marvie, Lotis, Marichu and Edmar, who were the
ages 10, 8, 7,6 and 1, respectively. Worried that something bad could happen to her
children while unattended by an adult companion, because her husband Mario was
staying in Divisoria and working as a mason, Vilma instructed Roberto to fetch his
younger brother and sisters from Antipolo. Roberto, however, failed to do so as he
went for an interview for a job on the same day. At about 8:00 p.m., Vilma asked her
youngest brother, Salvador Lomerio (Accused), to fetch the children from Antipolo and
bring them to Marikina. SALVADOR agreed and left that night for Antipolo in the
company of Roberto. SALVADOR and Roberto arrived at the house in Antipolo at
about 11:00 p.m. Roberto left behind SALVADOR who stayed for the night. LEONILA
was awakened when the two arrived. LEONILA opened the door for SALVADOR and
thereafter went back to sleep. SALVADOR stayed in the sala smoking cigarettes while
LEONILA and her brother and sisters were lying down. Later, SALVADOR took off his
clothes and went near LEONILA.
SALVADOR then got LEONILA's hands and pinned her down. After taking off her
shorts and panty, SALVADOR placed himself on top of LEONILA and then forcibly
inserted his organ in hers for a long time. LEONILA was hurting. All she could do was
cry. SALVADOR went back to the sala and slept. Again, at about 12:00 midnight of
the same date, Salvador went back to LEONILA and raped her for the second time.
SALVADOR threatened LEONILA that he would kill all of them if she would report the
rapes to anybody. Marvie was likewise raped by SALVADOR in the early morning of
the following day. As if nothing untoward happened, Salvador instructed the children
to dress up so they could go to Tuazon in Marikina and join their mother.

ISSUES: Is the accused guilty of rape?

Are there any aggravating circumstance?
HELD: Yes. The trial court therefore correctly ruled that SALVADOR is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Statutory Rape and should suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code applies to this
case because the rape was committed prior to the passage of the Heinous Crimes
Law. It states that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under the circumstance when the woman is under twelve years of age even
though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding
paragraphs shall be present. The birth certificate of LEONILA shows that she was
born on November 10, 1982 and this was admitted by SALVADOR during the formal
offer of evidence. Since the prosecution established that LEONILA was only ten
years old when the rape occurred on March 23, 1993, the crime SALVADOR
committed falls under the third paragraph of Article 335.
On the second issue, the only aggravating circumstance present is the
relationship. There is no nighttime since the subjective test is not passed because
there is no showing that SALVADOR purposely sought the cover of nighttime. The
mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime with nothing more does not make
nocturnity in this particular case an aggravating circumstance. As to the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence, it is essential to show that confidence
between the parties must be immediate and personal, such as would give the
accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act.
The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended parties' belief that the former would not
abuse said confidence.
In this case, the bare allegation that the victim's mother asked SALVADOR to
fetch her children from Antipolo to Marikina does not prove that she reposed
such confidence in SALVADOR that he could have used to his advantage in
committing the crime. The aggravating circumstance that is present in the case at
bar is relationship since LEONILA is the niece of SALVADOR. In crimes against
chastity, such as rape, relationship is aggravating.


Y TUMAMANG, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 126648.
August 1, 2000

Private complainant Danica is a thirteen year-old, first year high school student when
the sexual abuse happened. She knew the appellant because the latter earlier
convinced her father to allow him to stay in their house. Appellant started to live with
complainant's family in November of 1995.

Sometime in the evening of the third week of December, 1995, complainant

together with her eleven-year old brother Dexter and her eighteen-year old sister
Dorothy, a retardate, were in the living room of their house watching television.
Appellant bought a 500 ml. and a family size bottles of coke. He poured the contents
of the family size coke in separate drinking glasses which he then offered to the
complainant and the latter's two (2) siblings. After drinking the coke, the three felt
dizzy and became sleepy. Complainant went to the bedroom and laid down on the
bed. Her siblings slept in the living room. As she laid flat on her back, she felt
something heavy press against her body and found the appellant on top of her. She
could not resist the appellant due to weakness and loss of consciousness. She was
unable to tell what happened next.

Complainant woke up at 10:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day and felt pain
in her sexual organ. When she told her mother about the pain, the latter advised her to
take a bath believing that it could have been the effect of heat. After taking a bath, she
observed white substance (mucous) in her panty but she thought that she was going
to have her menstruation and did not mind it. She saw the appellant in the living room
and appellant warned her not to report the matter to her parents or he would kill her
brother and sister. From then on, appellant gave her dagger looks and stared at her
with a vexatious sneer.

The incident was repeated at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of January 7, 1996.
Appellant bought again a 500 ml. and a family size bottles of coke. Due to her
innocence, she again drank the coke offered by the appellant. Her siblings did the
same. After drinking the coke, the three (3) of them felt dizzy and they all went up to
the bedroom to sleep. Before she lost consciousness, she felt somebody on top of
her. She recognized the person to be the appellant but she felt too weak to resist him.
When she regained her consciousness at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of
January 8, 1996, she again felt pain in her vagina. She took a bath and stayed at
home. She saw her parents on that day but did not reveal the incident of the previous
evening as she did not expect appellant to dishonor her. She did not talk to appellant
when she saw him cleaning the living room that same morning.

On April 16, 1996, Danica's father PO1 Domingo Torreno accompanied her to the
Manila Naval Hospital for medical check-up after she told her parents that she missed
her monthly periods since January of that year. Danica's ultra sound examination
showed that she was then 4 to 5 months pregnant. She also underwent a pregnancy
test at the Multi-Specialty Clinic located at Guadalupe, Makati and the result was
positive. Danica cried when she learned that she was pregnant. She knew that the
father of the unborn child in her womb is the appellant as he was the only one who
abused her. She revealed to her father that appellant raped her in December 1995
and January 7, 1996. Utterly hurt by her daughter's plight, Domingo sought legal
assistance from the Naval Judge Advocate General (NJAG). On April 18, 1996,
Danica executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay before PO2 Loreto Pila of the Philippine
Navy in connection with the incident that happened in December, 1995. She filed
another complaint for rape against the appellant concerning the incident of January 7,
1996 at the Women's Desk Section of the Makati Police Station.

ISSUE: Is the accused liable for rape?

RULING: Yes. Under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman who is, inter alia, unconscious. We stress the
fact that complainant was unconscious when she was raped by the appellant. In that
state, she could not describe the details on how she was sexually violated.
Nonetheless, in cases where the victim is raped in a state of unconsciousness, the
fact of sexual assault and the identity of the assailant was established from the events
preceding or following the victim's loss of consciousness.


[G.R. Nos. 135667-70.
March 1, 2001

FACTS: Jessie V. Collado was the son of Benjamin Collado, who was the cousin of
the Jose Noli Dumaoal. The father of the Victim in this case. Jessie lived with the
family of Jose Noli and worked as the family driver, while waiting to become a seaman
like his Uncle Jose Noli. In the interim, he drove the school service operated by the
Dumaoals. Jose Noli was not in the country at this time, and his wife, Julie, lived with
the accused-appellant together with the three Dumaoal children: Reggie around 13,
Messeah (the victim) around 9 at the time, and Metheor who was around 6. In April
1993, when Julie and Reggie went to Cubao, leaving behind Messeah and Metheor,
the first harrowing incident occurred. Jessie barged into Messeah’s room upon which
the child inquired as to his purpose, because the former was not allowed there. In
response, Jessie tied her up to the four corners of her bed with straw. Messeah called
for help which prompted Metheor to go to her. But the child could not call for help
because upon his arrival, Jessie warned to harm him if he called for help. Jessie tried
to insert his penis into Messeah’s vagina, but being unable to do so because of the
difficulty, inserted it into her anus instead. Messeah felt pain in her anus and a sticky
paste-like substance flowed from Jessie’s penis. 6 year old Metheor tried to stop him
only to get a punch in the stomach. After the ordeal, Jessie warned the children to
stay quiet otherwise he would hurt them. The children, out of fear, were obliged.
Messeah attempted to prevent further attacks by askin her mother to put a lock in her
room, but the chore was passed on to Jessie who did not comply.
The second incident occurred on June 1993, when Julie and Reggie went to the
Marikina public market. Jessie dragged Messeah from the sofa where she was
resting, then began rubbing his penis against her thighs, touching her vagina.
Metheor again hear the cries of her sister and even threw a bread knife against
Jessie’s back, but once again to no avail. Jessie warned the children that should
they squeal on him, he would throw them into a volcano.
The third molestation occurred in July 1993, and once again it was only the
two children and Jessie at home. Metheor was upstairs sound asleep, and Reggie
had just recently gone out. As Jessie approached her, Messeah tried calling for
Reggie, but was silenced when Jessie drew a knife. Jessie then made her sit at
the edge of a steel chair spread, her legs together and once again began rubbing
his penis against her thighs, making contact with her vagina. The encounter
ended when she felt something sticky coming out of his penis and touching her
vagina. Jessie once again threatened Messeah that he would kill her entire family
if she told anyone.
The final incident occurred in October 1993, when Jessie entered Messeah’s
room and removed her panties. This time Jessie was able to to insert his smallest
finger (kalingkingan) into the child’s vagina. Messeah screamed and Metheor came to
her assistance. Jessie stopped but threatened to feed the children to the sharks if they
did not keep quiet.
The trial court convicted him for 1 count statutory rape and 3 counts of acts of
ISSUE: Is the charge correct against the accused?
HELD: The proper charge should be 4 counts of acts of lasciviousness.The trial
court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of acts of
lasciviousness. We take exception however to its finding that statutory rape was
committed by him on 5 June 1993. A thorough evaluation of the records will show that
accused-appellant Jessie Ventura Collado should only be convicted for acts of
lasciviousness and not for consummated rape. It is clear from Messeahs testimony
that when Jessie carried out his lecherous intent on 5 June 1993, he did not commit
rape, consummated nor attempted, despite the victims testimony that he succeeded
in touching her genitalia with his private parts. Nowhere can we find from the
foregoing any indication that accused-appellant successfully penetrated at least the
labia of the victim; neither can we glean therein any grain of intent on his part to
invade Messeahs privities. The victim only said in her testimony that Jessie initially
"pressed her legs apart with his two (2) legs, and rubbed his penis against her thighs,
until it touched her vagina." If accused-appellant was penetrating her or trying to
penetrate her for such a considerable period, she should have likewise cried out in
anguish for the pain in her sex organ.
We recall that during the first incident of 27 April 1993, accused-appellant tried
forcing his penis into her vagina, but when he failed in his first attempt, he inserted it
into her anus instead. This could have been attempted rape, or even consummated
rape but the Complaint filed was only for acts of lasciviousness. Thus,
accused-appellant cannot be convicted of attempted or consummated
rape.Noteworthy is that the victim was already in a spread-eagle position yet he was
unsuccessful in his attempt to defile her. By then he must have realized that it was
difficult to penetrate his victims sex organ such that during the second incident of 5
June 1993, he merely "rubbed his penis between her thighs" although in the process
"touched her vagina."
We recall further that during the third incident of 7 July 1993, accused-appellant
"inserted his penis between her thighs and used his legs to press her thighs together,
then he rubbed his penis against her thighs for some three (3) to five (5) minutes until it
touched her vagina and she felt something sticky coming out of his penis." As in the
second incident, there was no showing he inserted his penis into her labias, much less
tried to do so. This recourse to a "simulated means" of achieving orgasm is another
manifestation of his realization of, or resignation to, the difficulty of penetrating his
preys sex organ.
Inasmuch as the touching of the victims organ by the penis of accused-appellant
on 5 June 1993 was but a mere incident of the "rubbing against or between the victims
thighs" which in no way manifests an act preliminary to sexual intercourse,
accused-appellant should only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness instead of
consummated rape.

13. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS DELA CRUZ y


G.R. No. 75267

September 10, 1990


At about 8:00 o'clock p.m. on 6 September 1980, Brigida Venancio—then barely seven
(7) years old 3 — was walking through a heavy rain, alone and without an umbrella,
bound for her grandparents' house. While Brigida was passing by the Chapel in Sta.
Cruz, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, the accused Carlos dela Cruz y Venancio, a blood relative
of Brigida (the record does not disclose in what civil degree), suddenly reached out
from the doorway and grabbed Brigida's arm and pulled her inside the Chapel. In the
Chapel, where it was dark the lights being off, the accused led her to the last pew,
pinned her down on the pew and removed her panty. 4 Accused also removed his
pants and immediately introjected or sought to introject his penis into little Brigida's
private organ. While so engaged, the accused covered Brigida's mouth with his one
hand twisted her arm with his other arm. Accused succeeded in placing his organ on
top and at least partially into Brigida's private part. 5

The next day, 7 September 1980, Brigida and her parents and accompanied by
Marilou Carpio went to the office of the Police Station Commander of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan, and reported the rape of Brigida by the accused and had the matter reflected
on the police blotter. 11 In the afternoon of the same day, Brigida was brought by her
parents to the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") office in Manila for medical
examination. 12 The examination was conducted by Dr. Nieto M. Salvador who issued
a Medico Legal Report dated 7 September 1980 stating that the hymen was intact.

Brigida's parents, however, did not think very much of the medical examination
conducted by Dr. Salvador. Brigida's mother later testified in court that she believed
the examination had been done hurriedly and cursorily and
haphazardly. 14 Notwithstanding the conclusion of Dr. Salvador's report that Brigida's
"hymen [was] intact", Brigida's parents were determined to pursue their complaint on
behalf of Brigida. They were not, however, able to lodge one immediately against the
accused, since the police investigator was not in his office whenever they went to the
police station. 15 Thus, on 18 September 1980, Brigida and her mother went to the
Philippine Constabulary Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) at Camp Crame for
assistance. There, Brigida was again examined by PC Medico-Legal officer Dr.
Desiderio Moraleda who stated that Brigida was in a non virgin state.

Issue: Is he liable for rape?

Is there any aggravating circumstance?

Held: Yes. we note, firstly, that medical findings are not indispensable in the
prosecution of the crime of rape. 22 We note, secondly, that the fact that a woman's
hymen is found intact does not show that there had been no penetration by an
accused's male organ. It is well-settled doctrine that the slightest penetration of the
pudenda is quite sufficient for the consummation of the crime of rape. In People
v. Abonada, 23 the Court pointed out that "the medical finding that the hymen is intact
does not negate rape. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the female
organ even without rupture or laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction
for rape." 24Moreover, Dr. Salvador testified that he had found physical evidence of
"manipulation" of the vagina or the vestibule thereof, which is consistent with entry
into the lips of the female part of Brigida.

Brigida's statement that she had felt pain in her private part would have been
incomprehensible if there had been absolutely no penetration, not even of the labia by
the accused's male organ. It appears to the Court that the 7-year old Brigida was
much too young to be capable of distinguishing between the penis merely lying
outside the vagina and on top of the pubes, from the erect penis poking into the labia
in the effort to get into the vaginal canal, but being unable to do so because of the
unripe or infantile condition of the canal. We agree with the conclusion of the trial
court that there had in fact been some penetration at least of the labia and that
consequently, the crime that was committed was consummated rape.

On the second issue , it was proven at the trial that the violation of the child Brigida
took place in the Sta. Cruz Chapel in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, a building dedicated to and
actively used for religious worship. The criminal information did not apparently specify
the place of the commission of the rape. Nonetheless, the trial court could have and
should have found the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of
commission of the offense in a place dedicated to religious worship. 27 The trial court
made no mention of such aggravating circumstance in its decision. Because the
appropriately imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, and
was in fact imposed by the trial court, the finding that we here make of the presence of
this generic aggravating circumstance, does not impact upon the imposable
penalty. 28


G.R. No. 127748.
July 25, 2002

Facts: On February 6, 1995, at about 8:00 oclock in the evening, Teresa Guardo,
together with her parents and brother Renato alias Dodong, were in their house at
Barangay Baras, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur. Teresa was in the kitchen taking her
supper, while her parents and brother Dodong were already resting. Just then, Teresa
and her mother Remedios heard their neighbor Rosfil Montero calling Dodong, at the
same time knocking at the door downstairs. Rosfil wanted to buy medicines (tabletas).
At the instruction of Remedios, Dodong opened the window and flashlighted Rosfil,
who asked the former to open the door. Moments later, Dodong called them, asking
them to go downstairs. Sensing something was wrong, they went down together with
Remedios husband, Biolo Guardo. Then and there, they saw Dodong already hogtied
outside their house. Behind the post of their house, they saw Rosfil who tried to hide
himself. They also saw Lape Martinez, Dondon Suarez and Jolito Oranza. Lape
ordered Jolito to tie Teresa. He complied and hogtied her. He also got her necklace
and wrist watch, after which he took her upstairs. Lape then ordered Remedios and Bio
to hit the ground face against it. They obeyed him.

Upstairs, Jolito searched the room and found P500.00 inside the Cabinet and took it.
He then tried to make love to Teresa, who however resisted and pleaded to him not to
do it. He desisted and allowed Teresa to leave the room. But Lape met her as she was
going out of the room, forced her back inside, ordered her to lie down, undressed her
and when she resisted his advances, boxed and pointed a gun at her. He succeeded in
ravishing her, after which he left the room and went downstairs. Teresa tried to follow
but was blocked by Dondon who took her back to the room and raped her. Jolito then
took his turn in raping her.

After the three were through with her, the three then went inside the Store located at
the ground floor and feasted on the drinks, bread and cigarettes on display. They even
broke some bottles when they apparently got tipsy, and then gathered the more
expensive goods on display. Before they left, they flashlighted their faces and asked
their victims whether the latter recognized them. Out of fear, the Guardos answered
that they did not.

Issue: Should the accused be convicted of robbery with rape?

HELD: Yes, there is robbery since the intention of all the accused was to rob the house
and it was properly complexed with rape.

In rape cases, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of

the complainants testimony. Teresa likewise testified that even before that fateful
night, she knew accused Lape Martinez since childhood and accused Rosfil Montero
was her neighbor; that her brother Renato used a flashlight and saw Rosfil who
ordered him to open the door;that upon instruction of Lape, appellate tied her up and
then took her necklace and wristwatch; that appellant took her upstairs as his guide in
his search for money.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death whenever the crime of rape is
committed with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons. In the case at
bar, two circumstances are present, namely: (1) use of deadly weapon and (2) two
persons committing the rape. Both circumstances were alleged in the complaint and
proved at the trial. In People vs. Garcia, 105 SCRA6 [1981], the Court had occasion to
rule that where these two circumstances are present, there is no legal basis to
consider one circumstance as a qualifying circumstance and the other as a generic
aggravating circumstance, so as to impose the higher penalty of death. Under the law,
either circumstance is always a qualifying circumstance and cannot be regarded as a
generic aggravating circumstance for either is not among the aggravating
circumstances enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.


G.R. No. L-89418

Date: November 21, 1990

FACTS: The accused who are all serving sentence by virtue of a final judgment in
the Iwahig Penal Colony, Puerto Princesa, Palawan, conspired forcibly boarded the
motor launch named ‘M/L ELSA’ which was then at anchor seeking shelter in the
vicinity due to bad weather and while on board the said vessel, the accused Roberto
Aguirre, Eduardo Mendoza and Rodolfo Aspili, did then and there wilfully, and with
deliberate intent and lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation,
using guns and boloes for the purpose had sexual intercourse, one after the other,
with herein complainant, Narcisa Batayola, a minor 15 years of age, against her will,
she being one of the 17 passengers aboard the same vessel while the rest of the
accused were either having carnal knowledge with another victim, Josie Gonzales,
likewise a minor 13 years of age, by means of force and intimidation and against her
will; while the others were ransacking the baggages of the passengers and on the
occasion of such acts of the accused, panic took place aboard the said vessel, thus
forcing the other passengers to jump over board for fear of bodily harm, and as a
consequence thereof, Daisy Gonzales age 15 and Yolanda Arque, age 9, both
passengers of the said vessel were drowned; and further on the occasion thereof, all
the accused took and carried away unlawfully and feloniously and against the will of
the owners thereof, cash amount of money, personal belongings and cargoes of the
vessel amounting to no less than P2,000.00, Philippine Currency

The rape took place when Josie Gonzales tried to jump overboard but Ernesto
Magbanua, one of the accused, prevented her by holding both arms. Magbanua
pulled and dragged her. Josie struggled to free herself but to no avail. Magbanua
succeeded in dragging her over the cargoes where he pinned her down. While in that
lying position he forcibly raped her for about five to ten minutes. At that time,
Magbanua was pointing a gun at Josie’s head. After Magbanua was through, Rodolfo
Sales approached her, took off his pants and laid on top of her for about 3 to 5
minutes. At the time Sales was raping Josie, Magbanua was still holding her and
pointing a gun at her. After Sales, Pacifico Rebutido approached her and likewise
raped her. Josie tried to evade but she was already weak and only felt pain.
The other rape took place when Narcisa Batayola likewise attempted to jump.
Magbanua also held her at the back portion of her dress and told her to return to the
place where she and the other children were originally hiding. She saw the accused
ransacking the cargoes and taking the contents thereof. Moments later, Roberto
Aguirre then with a pistol held Narcisa on the shoulders while Eduardo Mendoza held
her legs and wrestled her down. Aguirre had sexual intercourse with her followed by
Mendoza. Thereafter, Rodolfo Aspili brought her out toward a sawali and right there
and then made her lay down in a slanting position. When Aspili was having sexual
intercourse with her, nobody was holding her but she could no longer resist as she
was already exhausted and weak.

ISSUE: WON there the accused are guilty of the crime of rape with homicide with
the aggravating circumstance of robbery in band
HELD: No. The Court finds, at the outset, that the trial judge erred in designating the
offense committed by the appellants as rape with homicide aggravated by robbery in
band. For one, neither in law nor in jurisprudence is there an aggravating
circumstance as robbery in band. More importantly, the evidence shows that what was
committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape.
The acts of the appellants therefore manifest an unlawful intent to gain, through
violence and intimidation of persons, by taking the vessel and personal property of the
crew and passengers, which comprises the crime of robbery. The overwhelming
evidence reveals that the original design of the malefactors was to commit robbery in
order to facilitate their escape from the penal colony. Their original intent did not
comprehend the commission of rape. Hence, the crime of rape cannot be regarded as
the principal offense. In this case, since it attended the commission of robbery with
homicide, the rape is deemed to aggravate the crime but damages or indemnification
for the victim may be awarded. With respect to the deaths of Daisy Gonzales and
Yolanda Arque, the appellants are clearly liable therefor since, as held by this Court in
People v. Mangulabnan, (99 Phil. 992 [1956]) it is immaterial that the death of a
person supervened by mere accident, provided that the homicide is produced by
reason or on occasion of the robbery.


G.R. No. 126148

Date: May 5, 1999

Facts: Catalina Carciller, her cousin 15-year-old Rufo Ginto and another male
companion named Richard Diaz, went to attend a dance at around ten o’ clock in the
evening of 05 March 1994 in Sitio Bangag, Tangil, Dumanjug, Cebu. Catalina, born on
09 November 1978,[4] was just then fifteen (15) years and four (4) months old. She was
a student at the Bito-on National Vocational School at Dumanjug, Cebu.
About an hour later, they left the party and were soon on their way home. The three
unsuspecting youngsters stopped momentarily to rest at a waiting shed beside the
Tangil Elementary School. Accused Agapito Quianola, a.k.a. Petoy, and accused
Eduardo Escuadro, a.k.a. Botiquil, who were both armed with guns, suddenly turned
Quianola announced that he and Escuadro were members of the New People’s Army
("NPA"). Quianola instructed Escuadro to take care of the male companions of
Catalina while he (Quianola) held the latter at gunpoint. Escuadro brought Diaz and
Ginto outside the waiting shed area. He ordered the duo to lie face down on the ground
and then urinated at them. While Escuadro was fixing the zipper of his pants, Diaz and
Ginto were able to escape and ran away. Meanwhile, Quianola, with his gun pointed at
Catalina, forcibly brought her towards the nearby school. When Escuadro showed up,
Catalina asked about her two friends. Quianola replied that he had ordered them to go
home. Catalina begged that she herself be allowed to leave. Pretending to agree,
they walked the path towards the road behind the school. Then, unsuspectingly,
Quianola forced Catalina to sit on the ground. She resisted but Quianola, pointing his
gun at her, warned her that if she would not accede to what he wanted, he would kill
her. Catalina started to cry. Quianola told Escuadro to remove her denim
pants. Catalina struggled to free herself from Escuadro's hold but to no avail. Escuadro
ultimately succeeded in undressing her. Quianola unzipped his pants and laid on top of
her while Escuadro held her legs. Quianola started to pump, to push and pull[5] even as
Catalina still tried desperately to free herself from him. She felt his organ "on the lips of
(her) genitalia.[6]
When Quianola had satisfied his lust, Escuadro took his turn by placing himself on top
of Catalina.Catalina could feel the sex organ of Escuadro on the lips of (her)
vulva[7] while he made a push and pull movement. Quianola, who stood by, kept on
smoking a cigarette. Escuadro and Quianola scampered immediately after Catalina's
ordeal. Failing to find her pair of pants and panty, Catalina was left wearing only her
T-shirt and brassieres.

ISSUE: Are the accused liable for Rape?

HELD: On the first issue, yes. The crime of rape is deemed consummated even when
the man’s penis merely enters the labia or lips of the female organ or, as once so said
in a case, by the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of
consummating the sexual act. Perfect penetration is not essential. Even while the
information has failed to allege the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the
rape, appellants can, nonetheless, be held accountable under that provision since the
information has likewise averred that the above-named accused, referring to the two
appellants, have conspiratorially committed the crime.


G.R. No. L - 36553
Date: March 30, 1982

FACTS: Information filed against Nolasco Famador in the CFI of Cebu for complex
crime of Abduction with Rape. CFI convicted him of simple rape and he appeals to the
Supreme Court.
Julie was at the store of her family near the train station, when she told her
mother that she will return the guitar to their home. She passed by the accused at a
street and the accused told her to come with him because her sister was looking for
her. After following him to Junquera St., she knew that her sister was not going to
meet them and it was then that the accused forced her to ride the cab.
At 2:00 AM Famador grabbe Julie Reyes, hailed a cab while brandishing a
revolver, pushed Julie inside the cab. Julie did not scream and inform the driver since
the revolver was pointed at her side. They alighted at Cebu Normal School. Famador
took Julie behind the stage of the Cebu Normal School and had carnal knowledge of
Julie while the gun was above Julie’s head while lying down. Julie tried to resist by
raising her legs and closing her thighs but the superior strength of Famador got the
better of her.

ISSUE: Is the crime committed a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and
not just simple rape?

HELD: Yes, the crime is the complex crime of abduction with rape, not simple rape as
held by the trial judge. When the appellant forcibly took away Julie for the purpose of
raping her, as in fact he did rape her, lewd or unchaste designs existed since the
commencement of the offense. In the instant case, the crime of rape was qualified
with the use of a deadly weapon. The offense, thus, is punishable with the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death. Since the offense of abduction with rape is a complex
crime, the penalty for the more serious offense should be imposed in the maximum

The commission of the offense is also aggravated by the following aggravating

circumstances, namely: (1) nighttime, the appellant having purposely sought such
circumstance to facilitate the commission of the crime; (2) abuse of his official position
as a policeman, the appellant having used his official service revolver and police
handcuffs in rendering his victim immobile and afraid; (3) the use of a motor vehicle,
the appellant having abducted complainant by pushing her into a taxicab and bringing
her to the place where he later raped her; (4) deceit, the appellant having lured the
minor girl to go with him and look for her sister Liza who was allegedly waiting for the
offended girl somewhere at Junquera Street.

G.R. No. L-60073
Date: September 23, 1983

FACTS: About twelve o'clock midnight, August 15, 1979, appellants Nenito C. Ferrer,
Rodolfo Zulueta and Nelson Maico and one Agapito Maico entered the house of
complainant Teresa Estrella in Guiguinto, Bulacan, by forcibly bending one of the iron
grills in the front jalousie windows, and with faces covered with handkerchiefs and
armed with a .38 revolver and a long knife, forced Narciso, one of the children of Mrs.
Estrella to knock at the master's bedroom where Mrs. Estrella and her second husband
Bernardo Alejo were sleeping. Lena Estrella was sleeping and her own room and was
awakened by a heavy knock at the door. She stood up and saw her mother, Mrs.
Estrella, accompanied by two armed men and they, together with the other members
of the household, were brought to the master's bedroom where Bernardo Alejo was.
They were gagged with pieces of cloth and hogtied with electric cords. Thereafter,
appellant Rodolfo Zulueta demanded money and jewelry from Mrs. Estrella, with threat
that one of her sons or members of the family would be taken as hostage if she would
not comply. Frightened, Mrs. Estrella yielded to appellants jewelry worth more than
P100,000.00 and cash money amounting to P17,000.00. Rodolfo Zulueta then brought
Lena Estrella, aged 14, to her room and armed with a Caliber .38 gun, removed one of
the straps of the duster Lena was wearing. Lena pushed him off but Zulueta poked the
gun at her and told her to do what she was told, otherwise, he would harm every
member of the household. He removed her other strap and touched her breast. Lena
pushed Zulueta away from her again but he removed her underpants and his own
clothes, then placed himself on top of her and succeeded in sexually abusing her.
Appellants Maico and Ferrer also had carnal knowledge with Lena following which they
brought her to the master's bedroom and like the rest, her hands were tied at the back
and she was made to lie down with her face towards the floor.

ISSUE: While the accused did not deny that there is a robbery , but is there rape so
that the crime charged is robbery with rape?

HELD: YES. Appellants, on arraignment, pleaded guilty to the information for robbery
with multiple rape after the trial court had repeatedly appraised them of the
consequences of their admissions of guilt. Besides, Lena Estrella, a child in her early
teens, testified on how she was sexually abused by appellants Rodolfo Zulueta, Nenito
Ferrer and Nelson Maico. As stated in US vs. Ramos, 1 Phil. 81, "when a woman
testifies that she has been raped she says, in effect, that all that is necessary to
constitute the commission of this crime has been committed." The testimony of Lena
was corroborated by Dr. Ruperta Caluag who examined her and found lacerations in
her organ "to be fresh and swelling." In People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235, We held
that "the lacerations in the hymen and the contusions on the walls of the labia minora of
the genitals of the complainant show that the copulative act had been penetrated by
means of force and violence."

The imposable penalty for the crime of robbery with rape is reclusion perpetua to
death. In the case at bar, the aggravating circumstances of night time to facilitate the
commission of the offense; the use of motor vehicle to facilitate their escape, and the
use of means employed to weaken the defense — all members of Estrella household
were hogtied by electric cords and gagged with pieces of clothes.


G.R. No. 111285
January 24, 2000

FACTS: On April 14, 1991, at around nine o'clock in the morning, Myra Pines, a
twelve-year old girl, was passing by the ricefield near the road located at Barangay
Ilayang Tayuman in the Municipality of San Francisco, Quezon Province. She was
carrying bananas on her way to the crossing in said municipality. As she passed by
the ricefield, she heard a voice coming from the direction of the forested area of the
place and it seemed to her that someone was being strangled. Listening closely, she
recognized the voice as belonging to her friend and playmate, Dyesebel de la Cruz, an
eight-year old girl. Frightened at the thought that Dyesebel was being strangled, Myra
scampered and proceeded to the crossing where she was originally headed for. After
discharging her bananas at the crossing, she went home.
Later that day, Dyesebel’s mother reported that Dyebel is missing a search is made for
her. Barangay Captain Allarey learned from Gonzalo de la Cruz that, earlier,
Dyesebel was in the company of accused-appellant Vicente Valla, and that both of
them were tasked to watch the ricefield. They went to the ricefield but appellant was
not there. Allarey learned from a barangay tanod that appellant was drinking liquor in
the house of a friend within the same barangay. He summoned appellant but the latter
failed to immediately report to him.
At around 11:00 o'clock in the morning of that day, they finally found Dyesebel.
Her body was found near the river with her neck blackened and her vagina bloodied.
She was still wearing her dress but her panty had been pulled down to her mid-thigh.
Allarey and his companions immediately confronted appellant who, out of remorse,
admitted that he raped and killed Dyesebel. Thereafter, he addressed Dyesebel's
father, in the presence of Allarey and company, offering his own daughter in payment
of Dyesebel's life which he took and begged for forgiveness. De la Cruz told appellant
that he cannot accept appellant's daughter and, thereafter, tried to unsheath his bolo.
But before De la Cruz could attack appellant, he was held back by the people around
him. Appellant was ordered arrested by Allarey.
ISSUE: What is the crime committed?
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of ignominy can be appreciated in the
case, under the facts in consideration.
RULING: On the first issue, it is rape with homicide and not "rape with murder" as
designated in the Information, since "homicide" is herein taken in its generic sense.
The aggravating circumstance of ignominy under Article 14, No. 17 of the Revised
Penal Code should be appreciated considering that the medico-legal officer testified
that the pubic area of the victim bore blisters brought about by a contact with a lighted
cigarette. This circumstance added disgrace and obloquy to the material injury inflicted
upon the victim of the crime.

G.R. No. L-28232

February 6, 1971

FACTS: The complainant, Magdalena "Maggie" de la Riva, was, at the time of the
incident, 25 years old and single. Movie actress by profession, she was receiving
P8,000.00 per picture. It was part of her work to perform in radio broadcasts and
television shows. It was that at about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of June 26, 1967,
Miss De la Riva, homeward bound from the ABS Studio on Roxas Blvd., Pasay City,
was driving her bantam car accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon, who was also
at the front seat. Her house was at No. 48, 12th Street, New Manila, Quezon City. She
was already near her destination when a Pontiac two-door convertible car with four
men aboard (later identified as the four appellants) came abreast of her car and tried to
bump it. Undaunted, Pineda opened the door of Miss De la Riva's car and grabbed the
lady's left arm. The girl held on tenaciously to her car's steering wheel and, together
with her maid, started to scream. Her strength, however, proved no match to that of
Pineda, who succeeded in pulling her out of her car. Seeing her mistress' predicament,
the maid jumped out of the car and took hold of Miss De la Riva's right arm in an effort
to free her from Pineda's grip. The latter, however, was able to drag Miss De la Riva
toward the Pontiac convertible car, whose motor was all the while running.

When Miss De la Riva, who was being pulled by Pineda, was very near the Pontiac
car, the three men inside started to assist their friend: one of them held her by the neck,
while the two others held her arms and legs. All three were now pulling Miss De la Riva
inside the car. Before she was completely in, appellant Pineda jumped unto the driver's
seat and sped away in the direction of Broadway Street. The maid was left behind.

The complainant was made to sit between Jaime Jose and Edgardo Aquino at the
back seat; Basilio Pineda, Jr. was at the wheel, while Rogelio Cañal was seated beside
him. Miss De la Riva entreated the appellants to release her; but all she got in
response were jeers, abusive and impolite language that the appellants and threats
that the appellants would finish her with their Thompson and throw acid at her face if
she did not keep quiet. In the meantime, the two men seated on each side of Miss De
la Riva started to get busy with her body: Jose put one arm around the complainant
and forced his lips upon hers, while Aquino placed his arms on her thighs and lifted her
skirt. The girl tried to resist them. She continuously implored her captors to release her,
telling them that she was the only breadwinner in the family and that her mother was
alone at home and needed her company because her father was already dead. Upon
learning of the demise of Miss De la Riva's father, Aquino remarked that the situation
was much better than he thought since no one could take revenge against them. By
now Miss De la Riva was beginning to realize the futility of her pleas. She made the
sign of the cross and started to pray. The appellants became angry and cursed her.
Every now and then Aquino would stand up and talk in whispers with Pineda, after
which the two would exchange knowing glances with Cañal and Jose.

The car reached a dead-end street. Pineda turned the car around and headed towards
Victoria Street. Then the car proceeded to Araneta Avenue, Sta. Mesa Street, Shaw
Boulevard, thence to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. When the car reached Makati,
Aquino took a handkerchief from his pocket and, with the help of Jose, blindfolded Miss
De la Riva. The latter was told not to shout or else she would be stabbed or shot with a
Thompson. Not long after, the car came to a stop at the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City
The blindfolded lady was led out of the car to one of the rooms on the second floor of
the hotel.

Inside the room Miss De la Riva was made to sit on a bed. Her blindfold was removed.
She saw Pineda and Aquino standing in front of her, and Jose and Cañal sitting beside
her, all of them smiling meaningfully. Pineda told the complainant: "Magburlesque ka
para sa amin." The other three expressed their approval and ordered Miss De la Riva
to disrobe. The complainant ignored the command. One of the appellants suggested
putting off the light so that the complainant would not be ashamed. The idea, however,
was rejected by the others, who said that it would be more pleasurable for them if the
light was on. Miss De la Riva was told to remove her stocking in order, according to
them, to make the proceedings more exciting. Reluctantly, she did as directed, but so
slowly did she proceed with the assigned task that the appellants cursed her and
threatened her again with the Thompson and the acid. They started pushing Miss De la
Riva around. One of them pulled down the zipper of her dress; another unhooked her
brassiere. She held on tightly to her dress to prevent it from being pulled down, but her
efforts were in vain: her dress, together with her brassiere, fell on the floor.

The complainant was now completely naked before the four men, who were kneeling
in front of her and feasting their eyes on her private parts. This ordeal lasted for about
ten minutes, during which the complainant, in all her nakedness, was asked twice or
thrice to turn around. Then Pineda picked up her clothes and left the room with his
other companions. The complainant tried to look for a blanket with which to cover
herself, but she could not find one.

Very soon, Jose reentered the room and began undressing himself. Miss De la Riva,
who was sitting on the bed trying to cover her bareness with her hands, implored him to
ask his friends to release her. Instead of answering her, he pushed her backward and
pinned her down on the bed. Miss De la Riva and Jose struggled against each other;
and because the complainant was putting up stiff resistance, Jose cursed her and hit
her several times on the stomach and other parts of the body. The complainant
crossed her legs tightly, but her attacker was able to force them open. Jose succeeded
in having carnal knowledge of the complainant. He then left the room.

The other three took their turns. Aquino entered the room next. A struggle ensued
between him and Miss De la Riva during which he hit, her on different parts of the
body. Like Jose, Aquino succeeded in abusing the complainant. The girl was now in a
state of shock. Aquino called the others into the room. They poured water on her face
and slapped her to revive her. Afterwards, three of the accused left the room, leaving
Pineda and the complainant After some struggle during which Pineda hit her, the
former succeeded in forcing his carnal desire on the latter. When the complainant went
into a state of shock for the second time, the three other men went into the room again
poured water on the complainant's face and slapped her several times. The
complainant heard them say that they had to revive her so she would know what was
happening. Jose, Aquino and Pineda then left the room. It was now appellant Canal's
turn. There was a struggle between him and Miss De la Riva. Like the other three
appellants before him, he hit the complainant on different parts of the body and
succeeded in forcing his carnal lust on her.

Mention must be made of the fact that while each of mention must be made the four
appellants was struggling with the complainant, the other three were outside the room,
just behind the door, threatening the complainant with acid and telling her to give in
because she could not, after all, escape what with their presence.

What kind of rape was committed?
HELD: It is forcible abduction with rape as a complex crime. There was forcible
abduction when she was dragged to get into the accused’s car. There is rape since
there was force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge.
The commission of said crimes was attended with the following aggravating
circumstances: (a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance
to facilitate the commission of these crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime
having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another; (c)
ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her
complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a
circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating;
and (d) use of a motor vehicle.
G.R. No.: 125542
Date: October 25, 2000

FACTS:Accused was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape.
At around 9 pm in the evening of May 11, 1995, complainant Doris Saguindang retired
for the night in her familys house in Gata Daku, Clarin, Misamis Occidental. At about 2
am of the following day, she was awakened by the presence of an intruder in her
room, who identified himself as a rebel and claimed that his commander wanted
to see complainant. The man poked a knife at her and covered her mouth to
prevent her from making an outcry. He was wearing briefs, her fathers overseas
cap, and her sisters shirt. Complainant was led out of the house through the back
door. Outside, the man twice called out, Commander, we are here, but no one
responded. The man dragged Doris towards the ricefield about 800 meters from
their house and there, at knife point, forced Doris to have sexual intercourse
with him. Doris tried to fight back but the man was too strong for her. Doris noticed
that, aside from a knife, the man had a bolo with him. As the man rolled to his side
after consummating the sexual act, Doris immediately picked her clothes and ran
naked as fast as she could towards the nearby house of her uncle, Margarito
Saguindang, who later brought her home. Complainant was then accompanied by her
parents to the Philippine National Police (PNP) station where she reported the
incident. Complainant described to SPO2 Jesus Macala her attacker. Seven suspects
were presented to her but none was her assailant. For this reason, the incident was
entered in the police blotter of the PNP, but no complaint was filed in court.
Dr. Medina testified that the perforation of complainant’s hymen could have been
caused by sexual intercourse. As for the mucous found in her genitalia, he said that
although it did not contain any spermatozoa, it was a sign of recent sexual contact. He
stated that the absence of sperm in complainants genitalia could be due to the fact
that she took a bath after the incident. With regard to his external examination of
complainant, Dr. Medina said that the injury in her neck was caused by a
fingernail and is consistent with complainants claim that she was choked. The
abrasion on her right thigh, on the other hand, was caused by a rough but not hard
object, while the hematomas on it and on her chest were caused by a hard object.

Whether or not the accused was guilty of the crime charged;
Whether or not there are aggravating circumstances appreciated by the court

HELD: On the first issue yes, accused is guilty. The complainant stoutly maintained
that she had never known accused-appellant before and that the latter, at knife point,
forced her to go with him and molested her in a ricefield. The trial court correctly found
accused-appellant guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. As
provided in Arts. 342 and 335, in relation to Art. 48, of the Revised Penal Code, the
elements of this crime are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of
her age, civil status or reputation; (2) that she is taken against her will; (3) that the
abduction is with lewd design; and (4) that the abducted woman is raped under any of
the circumstance provided in Art. 335. The evidence shows that, at knifepoint,
accused-appellant forcibly took complainant from her parents house and, in a ricefield
about 800 meters away, forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.
On the second issue, the following aggravating circumstance were appreciated
by the court:
- Use of deadly weapon, as above stated;
- Dwelling was correctly taken into account as an aggravating
circumstance as the evidence shows that complainant was forcibly
taken from the house of her parents;
- Nighttime was also correctly held to be present. Accused-appellant
sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime;
- Unlawful entry as testified by the barangay chairman, when he went to
the house of the victim the day after the rape incident, he noticed that a
baluster in the ceiling at the rear part of the house had been forcibly
removed and that there was a ladder propped nearby.