People v Ganaba

G.R. No. 219240

PONENTE: MARTIRES, J.

FACTS:

Bryan Ganaba, the accused-appellant, was charged with the crime of rape under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The accused-appellant, threatened the minor named
AAA to have carnal knowledge with him by using a knife. Regardless of the effort of
AAA to run away from the accused-appellant, the latter pinned her arms, mounted her,
pinched her shoulder, and was able to obtain the knife he used to threaten her.
Afterwards, the accused-appellant successfully had carnal knowledge with her.

The Regional Trial Court held that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA
by using force and intimidation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC
with modification regarding the damages awarded and said that the prosecution
established that the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape.

ISSUE:

Was the said act accomplished through the use of force and intimidation?

RULING:

Yes. For a successful prosecution of rape, the following elements must be present and
proved beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of
the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished: (a) through the use of force and
intimidation, or (b) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented

The evidence of the prosecution unmistakably validates the conclusion that the
accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA on July 1, 2009, with use of force and
intimidation.
 People v Bugna

G.R. No. 218255

PONENTE: MARTIRES, J.

FACTS:

Jerry Bugna, the accused-appellant was charged the crime of rape committed against
his biological daughter, AAA. The accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with his
daughter on two separate instances by using force, threat, and intimidation against the
will and consent of the latter who was 16 years old at the commission of the crime.

The Regional Trial Court found Bugna guilty of two counts of Qualified Rape defined
and penalized by Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the RTC and modified only the damages awarded.

ISSUE:

Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING:

Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape as
decided by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. Based on the evidences presented at the
case at bar, all the elements of qualified rape are present to convict Bugna for two
counts of rape committed against his daughter.

There is qualified rape when a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by

consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the
victim has carnal knowledge with a minor through force, threat or intimidation. In other
words, the element of qualified rape is as follows: (a) there is sexual congress; (b) with
a woman; (c) done by force and without consent; (d) the victim is a minor at the time of
the rape; and (e) offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the
victim.

In the case at bar, other than his testimony, Bugna failed to present disinterested
witnesses to corroborate his claim that he was not at home from April to December
2007. Faced with such appalling allegations, he could only muster a measly self-serving
alibi to defend himself. Surely, such defense fails to convince the Court of Bugna's
innocence especially since AAA had positively and convincingly identified him as her
abuser.
 People v Manaligod

G.R. No. 218584

PONENTE: MARTIRES, J.

FACTS:

Dennis Manaligod, the accussed-appellant was charged with statutory rape. The
accused had carnal knowledge AAA, a child under the age of twelve willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, to the latter’s damage and prejudice. BBB asked her daughter, AAA, an
eight (8) year old minor, to borrow a cellphone charger at the videoke bar where she
worked. When AAA came back, BBB saw that AAA had P20.00 in her possession. She
asked AAA where it came from and the latter answered that appellant gave it to her and
wouldn’t give a reason. Upon further questioning by her mother, AAA narrated that
appellant brought her to a room at the videoke bar where he removed her clothes and
underwear, and then undressed himself. Afterwards, he repeatedly inserted his penis
into AAA's vagina. Appellant then told AAA not to tell her mother what had happened
and gave her P20.00. Dr. Vilma Lorenzo performed the examination and found
lacerations in AAA's vagina.

The Regional Trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape for the
mere penetration of the penis through the labia of the vagina is enough to justify a
conviction of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC, but modified
the award of damages.

ISSUE: Whether the guilt of accused-appellant has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.

RULING:

Yes. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of
age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force,
intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape,
considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim
is below the age of 12. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the
prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity
of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the
complainant.
 People v Lababo, et al.

G.R. No. 234651

PONENTE: VELASCO, JR., J.

FACTS:

Benito, Wenefredo, Junior and FFF Lababo, the accused-appellants were convicted of
the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder for the death of AAA and the wounding of
BBB. The accused allegedly conspired with each other to kill AAA and BBB. It was
established that only Benito shot the victims while his co-accused were only present at
the scene of the crime.

ISSUE:

Are the accused equally guilty on the basis of conspiracy?

RULING:

Yes. For the charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that: (1) the offender killed the victim, (2) through treachery, or by any
of the other five qualifying circumstances, duly alleged in the Information.

The prosecution sufficiently proved that AAA, an unarmed minor,

sustained a single, but fatal wound on his back through from a firearm. This, to the
Court, is more than sufficient to prove that the killing is treacherous since the attack was
so sudden and unexpected that AAA was not given an opportunity to defend himself.

As for BBB's case, the Court agrees with the RTC and CA's factual finding
that the eight gunshot wounds sustained by BBB, as contained in the Medico-Legal
Ceriificate, would have caused his death if he was not given timely medical attention.
Furthermore, it does not appear that BBB was armed or was in a position to deflect the
attack. As a matter of fact, based on CCC' s narration of the events that transpired, the
suddenness of the attack upon AAA and BBB cannot be denied. Only that, unlike AAA,
BBB survived.

The act of killing becomes frustrated when an offender performs all the
acts of execution which could produce the crime but did not produce it for reasons
independent of his or her will. Here, BBB's survival was independent of the perpetrator's
will.
 People v Tanglao

G.R. No. 219963

PONENTE: MARTIRES, J.

FACTS:

Ricardo Tanglao, the accused-appellant was charged with violation of R.A. No. 8353, in
relation to R.A. No. 7610, for raping his seven (7) year old daughter. The accused-
appellant took advantage of his superior strength as a father, by means of force,
threats, and intimidation to have carnal knowledge with his daughter, AAA. The
Regional Trial Court held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of
violation of R.A. No. 8353 and found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC, but
modified the award of damages.

ISSUE:

Is the appeal meritorious?

RULING:

No. The appeal is without merit.

For a successful prosecution of rape, the following elements must be proved

beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished: (a) through the use of force and
intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
(c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.

AAA positively identified the accused-appellant as the one who raped her on 14
September 2001; this was incisively re-echoed by DDD when he testified. On the
element of carnal knowledge, AAA's testimony on the rape incident was straightforward
and convincing, consistent as it was with DDD's testimony on material and important
details.

Clearly applicable in this case is the well-settled rule that the testimony of a rape
victim who is of tender age is credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose
chastity was abused deserves full credence. Youth and immaturity are generally badges
of truth and sincerity. What makes the case against the accused-appellant stronger
were the medical findings on AAA.