People v.

Salvino Sumingwa
G.R. No. 183619
October 13, 2009

Facts: Sometime in August 1999, appellant herein, the father of AAA, called AAA and
ordered her to sit in front of him and told her that it was not good for a girl to have
small breasts so he inserted his hands into AAA's shirt then fondled her breast. AAA
resisted by moving her hands backwards.

September 1999, appellant ordered AAA to join him inside the bedroom and suddenly
removed his undergarments then forced her to grasp and fondle his penis until he
ejaculated. Appellant thereafter told her not to be malicious about it.

August 2000, appellant forced AAA to lie down on the bed, went on top of her,
removed her short pants and panty, then rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice.
AAA resisted by crossing her legs but appellant lifted her right leg and partially
inserted his penis into her vagina. As she struggled, appellant stood up then
ejaculated. AAA felt numbness on her buttocks after the bestial act committed against
her.

Appellant repeated his dastardly actseparate occasions in September and November

2000. Instead of keeping her harrowing experience to herself, AAA narrated it to her
best friend.

On November 24, 2000, appellant approached AAA and told her that he wanted to
have sex with her. When she refused, appellant forcibly removed her pants and boxed
her right buttock. AAA still refused, which angered appellant. He then went to the
kitchen and returned with a bolo which he used in threatening her. Luckily, AAA's
grandmother arrived, prompting appellant to desist from his beastly desires.

On December 20, 2000, AAA and her best friend were doing their school work in front
of the former's house. When appellant arrived, he embraced AAA. He, thereafter,
pulled her inside the house and kissed her on the lips.

The last incident occurred inside the comfort room of their house on May 27, 2001.
When AAA entered, appellant pulled down her short pants and panty, unzipped his
trousers, brought out his penis, then repeatedly rubbed it on her vagina while they
were in a standing position.

AAA decided to report the sexual abuses to her grandmother who forthwith brought
her to the National Bureau of Investigation where she was examined by the medico-
legal officer. It was found during the examination that there were no extragenital
physical injuries on AAA's body but there were old, healed, and incomplete hymenal
lacerations.

Appellant denied all the accusations against him and stated alibis as defense.

The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision convicting appellant of 6 counts of acts of
lasciviousness, 1 count of attempted rape and 1 count of unjust vexation. It gave
credence to AAA’s testimonies on the alleged lascivious acts committed against her. In
view of the withdrawal of her earlier claim of the fact of penetration, the court
sustained the innocence of appellant on the rape charges and concluded that crime
committed was only Acts of Lasciviousness.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of appellant, except that in
one criminal case, wherein the appellate court convicted appellant of Qualified Rape
instead of Acts of Lasciviousness.

Issue: Whether or not CA correctly convicted appellant for the crime of Qualified Rape
instead of Acts of Lasciviousness

Ruling: YES
The crime of rape is defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, as follows:

ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
followngcircumstances:

a. Through force, threat or intimidation.

In her direct testimony, AAA stated that appellant removed her short pants and panty,
went on top of her and rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice. She resisted by
crossing her legs but her effort was not enough to prevent appellant from pulling her
leg and eventually inserting his penis into her vagina. Clearly, there was penetration.

It is noteworthy that appellant pulled AAA’s leg, so that he could insert his penis into
her vagina. This adequately shows that appellant employed force in order to
accomplish his purpose.

In rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former’s moral
ascendancy and influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence
and intimidation. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow
the victim into submission to his beastly desires, and no further proof need be shown
to prove lack of the victim’s consent to her own defilement.

Aside from the fact of commission of rape, the prosecution likewise established that
appellant is the biological father of AAA and that the latter was then fifteen years
old. Thus, the Court of Appeals aptly convicted him of qualified rape, defined and
penalized by Article 266-B of the RPC.

In view of the effectivity of Republic Act 9346, appellant was correctly meted the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

In two criminal case, although appellant was charged with qualified rape allegedly
committed, he should be convicted with Acts of Lasciviousness committed against a
child under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610
People v. Mervin Gahi
G.R. No. 202976
Facts: AAA is sixteen years old testified that she knows the accused Mervin Gahi, the
latter being the husband of her aunt DDD, with force, threat and intimidation to raped
her two times, which caused her to be pregnant.

First Rape happened on March 11, 2002, she was in her grandmother BBB’s house with
her epileptic teenage cousin, CCC. At that time BBB was out of the house to collect
money from debtors. While she was in the living room mopping the floor, accused Mervin
arrived in the house. The latter was a frequent visitor as he used to make charcoal in
the premises. When Mervin arrived, AAA was by her lonesome as CCC was out of the
house.

AAA recounted that Mervin came near her and instructed her to “Lie down, lie down”.
Fearful upon hearing Mervin’s orders, AAA stopped mopping the floor. Mervin, with his
right hand, then held AAA’s right arm. He pushed AAA, causing her to lose her balance
and fall on the floor. Mervin raised AAA’s skirt and proceeded to take off her underwear.
All this time, Mervin was holding a knife with a blade of about 6 inches long, poking it
at AAA’s right breast. Fearful for her life, AAA did not resist Mervin’s initial advances.
After taking off AAA’s underwear, Mervin went on top of her and while in that position,
he took off his shorts, inserted his penis inside her vagina and ejaculated. AAA’s efforts
to free herself from Mervin’s hold were unsuccessful. As a result of her struggle, she felt
tired and weak. After satisfying his lust, Mervin warned AAA to keep secret what
transpired or else he would kill her. Afraid that he would make good his threat, AAA did
not mention to anybody what happened, even to her aunt DDD, the wife of the accused.

Second rape occurred on March 12, 2002 at about three o’clock in the afternoon. On
her way to the field and with a carabao in tow, she was met by Mervin along the foot
trail. While on the foot trail, Mervin went near AAA, prompting her to hurriedly
scamper to BBB’s house. Mervin followed her. Once in the living room of BBB’s house,
Mervin approached AAA, poked a knife at the right side of her body, pushed her and
made her lie down. Out of fear, she didn’t resist Mervin’s advances. He threatened and
ordered her to “keep quiet, don’t talk”. Then he raised her skirt and took off her
underwear, after which, he took off his short pants and his brief, laid himself on top of
her, and made pumping motions until he ejaculated. Blood came out of AAA’s vagina.
After the rape, AAA cried while the accused left the house. Just like before, she did not
mention the incident to anybody, not even to her grandmother and to her aunt DDD,
for fear that Mervin might kill them.

On the version of defense, Mervin asserts that he was processing a copra during the
time of alleged rape. He also argued that a mistake was committed by AAA in accusing
him considering the similarity between his name Mervin and Jackie Gucela’s
nickname, Melvin, who was known to be a suitor of AAA.

Issue: Whether or not Mervin is guilty of rape to AAA beyond reasonable doubt

Ruling: YES
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines when and how the felony of rape is
committed, to wit:

Rape is committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
(d) When the offended party is under twelve 12 years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1

hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
According to the prosecution, appellant used force or intimidation in order to
successfully have unlawful carnal knowledge of AAA. To be exact, appellant is alleged
to have utilized, on two occasions, a knife and the threat of bodily harm to coerce AAA
into submitting to his evil sexual desires. A careful perusal of AAA’s testimony in open
court reveals that she was clear and straightforward in her assertion that appellant
raped her twice in the manner described by the prosecution. We sustain as proper the
appellate court’s reliance on the following portions of AAA’s testimony regarding the
first instance of rape.
It is likewise jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her
testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to
convict the accused. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the fate of the accused in a rape case,
ultimately and oftentimes, hinges on the credibility of the victim’s testimony.
Anent the inconsistent statements made by AAA in her testimony which were pointed
out by appellant, we agree with the assessment made by the Court of Appeals that these
are but minor discrepancies that do little to affect the central issue of rape which is
involved in this case. Instead of diminishing AAA’s credibility, such variance on minor
details has the net effect of bolstering the truthfulness of AAA’s accusations. We have
constantly declared that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact
of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses because they discount the
possibility of their being rehearsed testimony.
Notable is the fact that no ill motive on the part of AAA to falsely accuse appellant was
ever brought up by the defense during trial. This only serves to further strengthen AAA’s
case since we have consistently held that a rape victim’s testimony as to who abused
her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the
accused. It is also equally important to highlight AAA’s young age when she decided to
accuse her kin of rape and go through the ordeal of trial. In fact, when she painfully
recounted her tribulation in court, she was just at the tender age of sixteen 16 years
old. Jurisprudence instructs us that no young woman, especially of tender age, would
concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter
pervert herself by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the
desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.

People v. BBB
G.R. No. 232071
July 10 2019

Facts: In four (4) separate Informations, BBB was charged with two (2) counts of rape
under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, and two
(2) counts of child abuse in violation of Section 10, in relation to Section 3, of R.A. No.
7610

AAA was born on June 29, 1996. After the death of her father, her mother remarried.
Consequently, AAA was left to be raised by her maternal grandparents - grandfather
BBB and grandmother CCC.

At about 9 o'clock in the evening of April 17, 2012, while CCC was on vacation in
Cebu, AAA was awakened when BBB came close to her AAA was lying on the bed
when BBB kissed her lips, mounted her and pulled up her sleeveless shirt. He,
thereafter, kissed her stomach up to her neck, squeezed her breasts, and kissed her
nipples. As BBB threatened AAA that he will not send her to school anymore if she will
not let him use her, he removed her short pants and underwear and removed his as
well. Then, he sat on her, inserted his finger in her organ many times, and thereafter
inserted his penis in her vagina. After satisfying his lust, BBB went back to sleep with
AAA's 2-year-old nephew between them.

On June 10, 2012, CCC was sewing clothes at the living room with only a cabinet
dividing it from the sleeping area. At 10 o'clock in the morning of said day, AAA was
looking after her sleeping nephew on the hammock at the sleeping area with BBB.
BBB then asked AAA to sit on his lap, but AAA refused. Despite this, BBB pulled her
close to him, removed her short pants and underwear, and made her sit on his penis
while he was seated upright. After having coitus (sexual intercourse) with AAA, BBB
put his pants back on.

BBB insists that AAA's credibility as a witness is objectionable considering that she
failed to immediately disclose to her aunt, DDD, whom she usually confides in, the
alleged sexual assaults committed by him. He added that her contradicting
testimonies failed to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor.
Thus, the judgment should be reversed.

Issue: Whether or not BBB is guilty of the crime rape

Ruling: YES
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided
by three well-entrenched principles:

1. an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is
difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to
disprove;
2. considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved
in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized
with great caution; and
3. the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.
Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, the primordial or single most important
consideration is almost always given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. When
the victim's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused person's
conviction since, owing to the nature of the offense, in many cases, the only evidence
that can be given regarding the matter is the testimony of the offended party. A rape
victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of
having raped her.

Here, BBB contends that he should be acquitted since AAA's testimony contains
inconsistencies and contradictions. But as We have consistently ruled, a rape victim
cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the
traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. Inaccuracies and
inconsistencies in her testimony are generally expected. Thus, such fact, alone, cannot
automatically result in an accused's acquittal.

Clearly, therefore, the elements of the offenses charged against BBB are present in
this case.

Time and again, the Court has held that in rape cases, the credibility of the victim is
almost always the single most important issue. If the testimony of the victim passes
the test of credibility, which means it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted
solely on that basis. The rule is settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility
of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and
conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show
facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court
overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered,
would alter the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are in the best
position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through
their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and
their behavior in court. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses
are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. The
rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by
the CA.

In view of the foregoing, We rule that the prosecution satisfactorily proved beyond
reasonable doubt that BBB had carnal knowledge of his own granddaughter, AAA, and
that he was correctly convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a),
in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC. As the grandfather of his victim, AAA, he
succeeded in satisfying his incestuous desires not only through his threats and
intimidation, but also because of his moral ascendancy over his minor grandchild.
Thus, the courts below were correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count of rape, without eligibility for parole.