People v.

Bon (2006)

G.R. No. 166401             October 30, 2006

[Formerly G.R. Nos. 158660-67]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
ALFREDO BON, appellant.

Ponente: Tinga
Case: An appeal from CA’s judgment finding BON guilty of 6 counts of rape and 2 counts of
attempted rape.
Facts:

 Eight (8) Informations were filed within the period from August 21, 2000 to February 23,
2001 against Alfredo BON, charging him with the rape of AAA and BBB, the daughters
of his older brother.
 AAA testified that she was sexually abused by BON:
 1st - 1994 (6 years old) in the house of her grandmother; she was threatened to
be killed should she disclose said incident.
 2nd - 1997 (9 years old) in the house of her grandmother
 3rd – 1999 (11 years old) in the same house
 4th – 2000 (12 years old) outside, when she was invited by BON to get some
vegetables
It was only on June 12, 2000 that she decided to reveal the said incidents to her mother,
who then filed a complaint against BON.
 BBB also testified that she was sexually abused by BON:
 1st – 1997 (10 years old) in the house of her grandmother; BON poked a knife as he
did the carnal act
 2nd – 1998 (11 years old) on several occasions; under the threat of a bladed weapon
 3rd – 1999 (12 years old) on several occasions; under the threat of a bladed weapon
 4th – January 15, 2000: under the threat of a knife, BBB cannot do anything; although
it was dark, she knew that it was BON who molested her as she was familiar with his
smell.
Since then, she never slept in her grandmother’s house again. It was only on June 14,
2000 that BBB disclosed the incident to her mother. Prior to that, she had already
revealed the sexual abuses she had underwent to her sister AAA. Upon learning of the
same, her mother brought her to the police station and was examined in the hospital.
After such examination, it was confirmed that BBB was indeed sexually molested.
  RTC: guilty of 8 counts of rape (8 death sentences); it considered the qualifying
circumstances of MINORITY of the victims and the RELATIONSHIP of the victims and
the appellant (relative by consanguinity within the 3rd degree).
 CA: guilty of 6 counts of rape (6 death sentences) and 2 attempted rape (prision
mayor (minimum) to reclusion temporal (maximum)
Issue 1: Whether or not the twin aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship were
properly appreciated.
Ruling 1: Yes, the lower court properly established victims’ minority through their birth certificate
and that BON himself admitted that he was the uncle of the 2 victims, a relative within the 3 rd
degree of consanguinity.
Issue 2: Whether or not CA’s verdict of conviction was proper.
Ruling 2: Yes, it was proper: 6 counts of rape and 2 counts of attempted rape.
Issue 3: Whether or not CA correctly imposed the penalty of prision mayor (minimum) to
reclusion temporal (maximum) for ATTEMPTED RAPE.
Ruling 3: No, the CA did NOT correctly impose the penalty, in connection with the enactment of
the Law abolishing death penalty.
Art. 266-B of the RPC:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed…1) when the
victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3 rd civil degree, or the
common law spouse of the parent of the victim…