PEOPLE v ATOP

G.R. 124303-05 | Feb. 10, 1998 | J. Panganiban

FACTS:

 The accused is the common law husband of the victim’s grandmother (Like WTF).
 Sometime in 1991, Regina Guafin (10) told her grandmother that his grandfather, Alejandro
Atop (37), inserted his finger into her vagina. Aside from not believing her, Trinidad (the
grandmother) told her it was just a “manifestation of fatherly concern” (I can’t even.).
 Oct. 9, 1992 [1st rape]: As Regina (then 12 y/o) was approaching Atop, he suddenly rushed
towards her, removed her panty and inserted his male organ into her vagina (well that
escalated quickly). Aside from gagging her, he was also carrying he knife so she couldn’t do
anything. This happened again sometime in 1993 [2nd rape] and on Dec. 26, 1994 [3rd rape].
Every time, she told her grandmother but Trinidad wouldn’t believe her.
 Dec. 31, 1994 [4th rape]: She was molested in the presence of her aunt and Atop’s two
nieces. Regina and the two nieces kicked him so he stopped.
 January 1995: She was at her other grandfather’s house when the accused came and tried to
force her to go home. He kept on pulling her until they reached a waiting shed where the
accused smashed her to the concrete wall. This explained all the bruises and abrasions in
her body upon medical examination.
 She only reported such incidents in January 1995 because she was afraid Atop will kill her.
She did not exactly tell the truth (in her sworn statement, she only said that a finger was
inserted) at first because Atop was still not apprehended (he was hiding). When finally he
was arrested, she requested the fiscal to re-investigate and then told them what was really
done to her.
 He was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and was sentenced to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua
and death. In the other rape incident (Dec. 31, 1994), he was found not guilty for
insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:
WON the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity is present: NO.

 No evidence that the accused intentionally sought the darkness to do his dastardly acts.
WON relationship is present as an aggravating circumstance: NO.

 There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the two.

 Scope of relationship:
o Spouse
o Ascendant
o Descendant
o Legitimate, natural or adopted sibling
o Relative by affinity in the same degree (in-laws)
 Since he is only a common-law husband, Court said nope.
WON the death penalty is rightfully applied: NO.
  For rape, it can only be given if the victim is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law spouse of
the parent.
 And since in this, Atop was the common law spouse of the grandmother, still nope.
 SC’s excuse: penal laws are construed in favor of the accused
(Because Atop was appealing that the RTC was wrong in finding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt) WON he is: YES.

 Recognized rule: testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are each worthy
of full credence. In this case, she was 15 y/o.
 [And I quote] “It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fifteen years, would allow
her private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors of a public trial -- along
with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own mortifying defilement -- if
she was not in fact ravished.”
 They said her tears and testimonies conveyed the hurt, the pain and the anguish she has
suffered and lived with during all the years.
WHEREFORE, SC affirms the decision of the RTC but modifies the penalties to 3 counts of reclusion
perpetua.
hehe