People v.

Crisostomo

Facts: In three separate Informations, Crisostomo was charged with rape. The victim in these cases,
AAA, testified that at noon time of April 8, 1999, she was playing with her playmates whereupon she
wandered by the house of accused which was just below their house. AAA clarified during her cross-
examination that there was a vulcanizing shop owned by her father located in their house and where
accused was employed. While AAA was at the house of accused, she claimed that her genitals and
buttocks were burned with a lighted cigarette by the said accused. AAA testified further that her clothes
were taken off by the same accused who also took his clothes off after which he allegedly placed himself
on top of her, inserted his penis and proceeded to have illicit carnal knowledge of the then six 6 year old
girl. Father of AAA, presented in court his daughters birth certificate which stated that she was born on
April 4. Dr. Emmanuel Reyes the Medico-Legal Officer who examined AAA identified his Medico-Legal
Report that the victim indeed had two 2 third degree burns in the perianal region. Dr. Reyes testified that
it was possible that the said burns were caused by a lighted cigarette stick being forced on the victims
skin. Moreover, Dr. Reyes confirmed that there was a loss of virginity on the part of the victim and that
the same could have been done 24 hours from the time of his examination which was also on April 8,
1999. Doctor also examined AAA and confirmed that the latter was indeed a victim of rape.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty.

Ruling: Yes. The SC held appellant guilty of two counts of rape by sexual assault and one count of rape by
sexual intercourse. When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is
“termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law punishes is
carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the
woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and
cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years.” Likewise, the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt for two counts of rape by sexual assault. Records show that appellant
inserted a lit cigarette stick into “AAA’s” genital orifice causing her labia majora to suffer a 3rd degree
burn. Appellant likewise inserted a lit cigarette stick into “AAA’s” anal orifice causing 3rd degree burns in
her perianal region.

“AAA’s” “uncertainty” on whether it was a match, rod or a cigarette stick that was inserted into her
private parts, did not lessen her credibility. Such “uncertainty” is so inconsequential and does not
diminish the fact that an instrument or object was inserted into her private parts. This is the essence of
rape by sexual assault. ” The gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault is the insertion of the penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or
anal orifice.” In any event, “inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony do not impair her credibility,
especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the
commission of rape.”
People v. Jastiva

Facts: On August 3, 2004, AAA, a 67-year-old married woman, was drying corn in their small barn in a
farmland, when her husband, BBB, left her alone to attend to their sick daughter. At about 1100 in the
evening, AAA was fast asleep when Aurelio Jastiva Jastiva threatened her with a knife and warned her
not to shoutbecause he will have sexual intercourse with her. AAA was able to grab Jastivas hand but
then, she felt theblade of the knife he held. Thereafter, Jastiva removed AAAs underwear but he cannot
proceed with hislewd design because his penis was not yet erected. Jastiva, therefore, toyed with AAAs
sexual organ by licking it. Jastiva then made his way up and tried to suck AAAs tongue. After that, Jastiva
held his penisand inserted it to AAAs vagina. After ravishing his victim and before AAA could stand up,
Jastiva patted AAAs shoulder and said Salamat. Since it was dark in the barn, it was only after the
consummation ofthe crime that AAA recognized who her assailant is. On the next day, AAA relayed her
nightmare to her neighbor and her husband BBB. The spouses reportedthe incident and AAA was
medically examined. The doctor found that AAAs vaginal opening, labia major and labia minora on both
sides, showed signs of irritation and is reddish in color, in addition to a partialseparation of tissues
between the labium.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape.

Ruling: Yes. The elements of rape (under paragraph 1, subparagraph a of Article 266-A) are as follows: (1)
that theoffender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that such act
isaccomplished by using force, (threat) or intimidation.The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of
Jastiva beyond reasonable doubt based on AAA’s credible,positive and categorical testimony, AAA’s
positive identification Jastiva as the perpetrator, the physicalevidence presented and the absence of ill
motive on the part of AAA in filing the complaint against Jastiva.