People v. Taperla Case Digest

PEOPLE v.
TAPERLA FACTS:
G.R. No. 142860
January 16, 2003
Before us is an appeal from the decision dated November 22, 1999, of the Regional Trial of Davao City, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No. 43, 500-99, finding accused-appellant Victor Taperla guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. His co-accused, Ronnie Avila y Culpa and Jonathan Lastimado y Alpeche, were acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Upon arraignment, the three accused pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. In the evening of July 4, 1999, at around 9:00 oclock, seventeen -year old Maricel Bascones was walking towards the direction of her aunts house located in Sitio Kinapa -an, Daliao, Toril, Davao City. She decided to take a short-cut by passing through the Davao Fish Port Complex which was adjacent to her aunts 3 house. As she approached the fish ports main gate, she noticed that accused -appellant had been following her. Maricel hurriedly walked away but was nonetheless blocked by Ronnie Avila and Jonathan 4 Lastimado, who took hold of her arms and brought her to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant dragged the victim towards the back of the Polar Bear Storage. Maricel tried to break 5 free from him but to no avail. She tried to shout but nobody was around. Accused-appellants size and weight, at 55" tall and 64 kilograms in weight, enabled him to successfully bring the victim, who stood 6 only 411" and weighed only 45 kilograms, to the back of the storage building. He laid Maricel on top of a makeshift table and pinned her neck with his arm. After consummating his lustful act, accused-appellant 8 threatened to kill the victims brother if she were to tell anyone what had just transpire d. Maricel immediately proceeded to her aunts house where she narrated her harrowing experience. They first went to the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Lizada and thereafter proceeded to Dr. Casquejo who 9 conducted a physical examination of the victim. They then headed to the police station where they filed 10 their complaint against the accused-appellant. Dr. Casquejo further testified that Maricels vaginal canal had lacerations at 3 and 9 oclock positions and 12 the mucus fluid taken inside tested positive for spermatocytes. On the other hand, accused-appellant claimed that he and Maricel were lovers and that what happened 13 on the night of July 4, 1999 was consensual. After trial, judgment was rendered against accused-appellant. Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused VICTOR TAPERLA beyond reasonable doubt as to rebut his constitutionally presumed innocence. For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused RONNIE AVILA y CULPA and JONATHAN LASTIMADO y ALPECHE beyond reasonable doubt and thus failed to rebut their constitutionally presumed innocence, they are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged in the Information. ISSUE: 1. 2. 3. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not considering the defense interposed by accused-appellant. Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant notwithstanding
the erroneous information as to the date of commission of the offense and the absence of an affidavit-complaint of the private complainant. HELD: The "sweetheart theory" advanced by the defense fails to convince us. It is uncorroborated, self-serving and deserves scant consideration. Save for his own declaration, accused-appellant was unable to prove that carnal knowledge between him and Maricel was consensual. Even assuming that they were sweethearts, he had no excuse to employ force and intimidation in satisfying his carnal desires. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. A man cannot demand sexual submission and, worse, employ violence upon her on a mere justification of love." The evidence shows that accused-appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the victim by using force and intimidation. Maricel suffered contusions and abrasions on different parts of her body. Abrasions on the victims body are ample proof of struggle and resistance against rape. As regards the alleged discrepancy of the time of the rape, the rule is well settled that in rape cases, the date or time of the incident is not an essential element of the offense and therefore need not be accurately stated. It is not a pre-requisite for the same to fall within the purview of Section 11 of Rule 110, which states:
SEC. 11. Time of the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.
It cannot be said that accused-appellant was deprived of due process when the Information filed against him for Rape failed to state the exact date of the commission of the offense. Date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of the woman. The phrase "on or about July 4, 1998" stated in the information gives the prosecution sufficient latitude to prove any date which is not so remote as to surprise and prejudice the defendant. Thus, the precise date 22 need not be alleged in the Information. All told, we find that accused-appellant is guilty of rape, as defined in Article 266-A, in relation to Article 23 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code:
ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed.- Rape is committed. 1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force threat or intimidation;
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No. 43-500-99, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the offended party P50,000.00 as moral damages, is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is reduced to P50,000.00. SO ORDERED.

People v. Taperla Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Taperla Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Taperla Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v.

G.R. No. 142860

January 16, 2003

You might also like