Case Summary/Digest

Read the following cases and prepare case summary (case digest) for each case assigned to you, containing

(1) The caption/Title of the case (with the case number and date of promulgation);

(2) Brief statement of the Facts of the case;

(3) Contentions of the parties (Prosecution and Defense);

(4) Issues; and

(5) Ruling of the Court (SC).

Five (5) cases per student.

Paper size A4 (short bond paper); Font size: 12

Submit your Case summary/Digest to me via email at: attyedgonzales@yahoo.com.ph, on or before August
31, 2020, copy furnish all your classmates.

People v. Siao – G.R. No. 126021; March 3, 2000 -

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_126021_2000.html

1. People v. Mallari – G.R. No. 145993

2. People v. Enguito – G.R. No. 128812
3. People v. Guerrero – G.R. No. 134759
4. People v. Simangan – G.R. No. 157984

71. People v. Siao - G.R. No. 126021; March 3, 2000

FACTS:  Reylan Gimena and Estrella Raymundo (14 years old) are house helpers of Rene Siao. One afternoon in
May 1994, Rene Siao ordered Reylan to pull Estrella into the maid’s quarter. Siao pointed a gun at Reylan and
ordered him to do sexual acts against Estrella. Siao also pointed a gun at Estrella telling her to suck his private
part. Thereafter, still pointing a gun at both of them, Siao ordered Reylan to have sex with Estrella using the
“dog-style” position.

Eventually, Estrella was able to inform the police about what happened. In the Information filed against Siao,
no aggravating circumstances were alleged. During trial, Estrella and Reylan testified against Siao. In 1996, Siao
was convicted for rape as principal by inducement and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The court considered the aggravating circumstance of use of deadly weapon against Siao. Reylan
was acquitted.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Defense’s contention: First, that prosecution’s failure to present the gun used by Siao to force and intimidate
Ester and Gimena is fatal to the prosecution’s cause. Second, the trial court erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of Ester and Gimena despite being fraught with substantial inconsistencies. Lastly, Ester and
Gimena’s testimonies don’t conform to common experience (e.g. Gimena ejaculated 3x in less than 30
minutes; rape took place within earshot and near presence of other people, including a barangay tanod; Ester
and Gimena didn’t try to escape in the 10 minutes it took for Siao to follow them from women’s to the boys’
room; Ester reported the incident to an old man she chanced upon on her way home).
ISSUE: What are the aggravating circumstances in the case at bar?

RULING: It was proven that Siao used his gun to consummate the crime but under existing jurisprudence,
aggravating circumstances that will change the nature of the crime (or the so called qualifying circumstances)
must be alleged in the Information in order to be appreciated against the accused. Otherwise, his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him will be violated. Had it been alleged, Siao would
have been liable for qualified rape. Since there was no allegation, then he is only liable for simple rape.

The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua.

On the other hand, the trial court overlooked the appreciation of the ordinary mitigating circumstance of
ignominy. “It has been held that where the accused in committing the rape used not only the missionary
position, i.e. male superior, female inferior but also the dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was
proven like the crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.” (People vs Saylan, 130 SCRA 159).
Nevertheless, since the law on rape provides that the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua regardless
of the presence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of recluion perpetua as held by
the trial court is sustained.

RTC decision AFFIRMED (reclusion perpetua + civil liability of P50,000 indemnity) with MODIFICATION (P50,000
moral damages + P20,000 exemplary damages)

Rape was committed AFTER the effectivity of R.A. 7659 on December 31, 19993. The governing law, Art. 335 of
the RPC, as amended, imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with the use of a
deadly weapon.

RTC overlooked aggravating circumstance of ignominy (accused in committing the rape used not only the
missionary position, but also the dog position) -

Use of deadly weapon serves to increase the penalty. But said fact should be alleged in the information, due to
the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Since the complaint
(later converted into Information) failed to allege the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty to be reckoned with
in determining the penalty for rape would be reclusion perpetua, the penalty prescribed for simple rape –
single indivisible penalty which must be applied regardless of any mitigating/aggravating circumstances.

TC erred in ordering Siao to pay only indemnity (civil liability arising from the offense) of P50,000. Siao should
also pay moral damages (automatically granted in rape cases without need of any proof; fixed at P50,000) and
exemplary damages (presence of 1 aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages
pursuant to Art. 2230 of the Civil Code)