PEOPLE V. MARIANO Date: Nov.

14, 2001 Ponente: Prado Parties: Petitioner: People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee Respondent: Enrico Mariano y Exconde, accusedappellant Nature: Review of the Decision of the RTC of San Pablo City RelevantLaws: Art 266-A, RPC Facts Three cases of rape were filed by Jenalyn Mariano against her father, respondent herein - Aug. 1992: - Jenalyn's mother left for London on Aug. 9, 1992. So Jenalyn and her brother were left in the custody of their drunkard father. He forced them to drink a shot of gin with him, and then ordered them to go sleep in the sala. Late at night (10PM), Jenalyn woke up to find her dad naked, kneeling in front of her and touching her vagina. She no longer had her panty on. Accused then mashed her breasts, and tried to insert his penis in her vagina, she resisted. Eventually he stopped because he was too big for her and so he just masturbated. The victim did not disclose this to anyone out of fear of her father who threatened to kill her and her brother next to the others he killed before. - Sept. 1992 - Jenalyn was living with her aunt, Sonia M. Flor, the accuseds older sister. Accused and Jenalyn lived in the extension room at the back of the house. One night he came in the room at around 10PM, drunk, and ordered Jenalyn to sleep in the extension room. Jenalyn obeyed out of fear. Accused reiterated the names of the people he killed. Wearing only his brief, the accused laid down beside Jenalyn in the bed. He smoked a cigarette and laid his knife on a table. Then he removed the mosquito net which covered Jenalyn's side of the bed, took of her shorts and panty, and placed himself on top of her. Jenalyn wanted to scream but then he poked her with a knife. He tried to insert his penis in her vagina but could not fit. So he gave up and masturbated. - Feb. 2, 1997 - Jenalyn and accused were still staying a the extension room of Sonia. While she and her two cousins were watching a NOONTIME TV, her father came home drunk and whistled for her to come with him to the extension room. Accused told Jenalyn to lie down on the bed and sleep. Accused then took off his pants and placed his knife on top of the cabinet. Jenalyn tried to sleep but her dad kept saying that he already changed and that he was going to die soon. Clad only in his brief, he climbed on top of her and took of Jenalyn's pants and panty and, with his brief lowered to his knees, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina but was not able to penetrate because he could not fit. So he gave up and masturbated. Jenalyn could not take it anymore and confided in her aunt who reported to the police. - Sept. 16, 1997 - Accused denied everything. - Dr. Cerda conducted a medico-legal examination on Jenalyn and found that the victims hymen admitted one finger with ease, and that it bore old healed lacerations at 2 oclock, 5 oclock, 7 oclock and 9 oclock. She identified her medico-legal report and declared that the lacerations could have been caused by penetration by the opposite sex, excessive exercise, accident, or trauma. - Accuseds alibi:

Issue Held

- Aug. 1992: he was in hiding at the house of his compadre in Gasan, Marinduque because of threats to his life for killing 2 people - From 1995-1997: staying with Alma Flores in Brgy. Cupping - Sonia testified for the accused and corroborated his alibi. However Sonia said that Janelyn did not fabricate the cases since she was not with them all the time. She confirmed however that whenever the accused visited his children, he treated them harshly. WON the accused committed attempted or consummated rape

The accused committed attempted rape. There was nothing in the witness testimony that proved that the penis reached the labia of the pudendum of the victims vagina. She only said that his penis was touching my vagina. There was no penetration, however slight. (But she always said in her testimony that he TRIED INSERTING his penis in her vagina! There must have been some entry, however slight.) The victim said that there was no penetration because his penis was too big. The witness testimonies were shifting as to how the accused raped her (most probably because they were frightening her with confusing cross examinations), more particularly regarding the penetration of the accuseds penis in her vagina, and the presence of the knife. The Court finds that Jenalyns vagina was not penetrated. In the first try, the penis stroked her singit (groin). Neither was there penile penetration in the subsequent tries. In her re-direct testimony, Jenalyn said that there was no penile penetration, only fingering. Certainly the testimony of the victim to the effect that the accused repeatedly poked her vagina and that she felt pain as a consequence thereof, would not be enough to warrant the conclusion that a consummated rape had indeed been committed. The evidence is not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the rape was consummated, and thus the Court only charges his of attempted rape. Decision The penalty for ATTEMPTED rape is 2 degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for consummated qualified rape. 2 degrees lower is RECLUSION TEMPORAL. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed upon the accused is the medium period of reclusion temporal as the maximum, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prison mayor. The penalty shall be imposed upon each case of attempted rape. 10 years to 17 years and 4 months. Civil Indemnity to Jenalyn: P30,000, Moral damages: P25,000, Exemplary Damages: P10,000. NOTE: What an annoying case. Rawr. They didnt even take into consideration that the rape was committed with an aggravating circumstance that the victim was below 18 and a child of the offender - a penalty of which would be DEATH. And if ever it WAS only attempted rape, then it would require a penis attempting to penetrate a vagina, NOT A FINGER. Fingering would be CONSUMMATED sexual assault. Stupid.

People v. Dogaojo 2001 Per Curiam Parties: Plaintiff: People of the Philippines, Melinda Dogaojo (daughter) Defendant: Domingo Dogaojo (father) Appeal to SC of RTC decision sentencing defendant to 7 counts of rape amounting to 7 death penalties Relevant Law:

Facts: -

Section 11, RA 7659 elements of rape as heinous crime (discussed below) 7 instances of rape have been alleged by plaintiff against defendant Defendant was born on November 19, 1984 and the rapes committed in the months of March, April, May and December of 1996 o She was 11 years old for the first 6 instances and 12 years old on the 7th instance o First Instance March 21, 1996 The defendant was alone with the plaintiff in their house in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. He forced himself upon the plaintiff for about a minute, the plaintiff feeling pain in her organ. The defendant then threatened her life if she attempted to tell anyone about it. o Second to fifth instances March 22, April 13, 21, and May 21, 1996 The father raped her while the family was sleeping. Plaintiff felt pain in her organ. o Sixth instance March 26, 1996 The father called her into the house where he raped her again The rape lasted a few more minutes with the father ejaculating o Seventh instance December 17, 1996 Occurred in their new house. Similar to the sixth instance. Medico-legal evidence shows that the victims hymen is intact Father denies having raped her daughter, corroborated by his wife o Alibi: he was often at the construction site (he was a construction worker) and would often spend nights there during the weekdays. o Daughter was getting back at him for an altercation, (about her boyfriend) and because of advice from his mother-in-law (who didnt like him because he was poor) RTC convicted him of all 7 instances of rape, sentencing him to 7 death penalties.

Consistent with victims testimony that the rapes would only last a few minutes with the father unable to fully insert his penis Medico-legal corroborates possibility of penetration leaving the hymen intact According to RA 7659, even the slightest penetration by the male of the female genitalia is enough to convict. Civil indemnity (75,000), moral damages (50,000) and exemplary damages (25,000) should be awarded for each count of rape.

People of the Philippines v. Rolando Magabo January 23, 2001 J. Gonzaga Reyes Facts: June 28, 1998: Accused Magabo invited victim Naomi Dacanay, a mental retardate, to his house. The latter immediately acceded. o Kissed Dacanay on the lips o Fondled her breasts o Made Dacanay lie down on the floor and had intercourse with her Victim told her mother of what happened and they went to the police to report the incident and be examined. Dr. Freyra, the medio-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory found the following: o healed lacerations at 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions on the victim's hymen o abrasions on her labia minora Defense of the accused: he knew the victim but said he could not recall seeing the latter at the market on June 1998. He further alleged that a certain Buenaflor, with whom he had altercations with, informed Naomis father of the alleged rape to get back at him Trial court held the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape o penalized by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659 and further amended by Article 266-A and Article 266-B, Republic Act No. 8353 o sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua o ordered to indemnify the private complainant the amounts of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000 as exemplary damages Issue: WON accused Magabo is guilty of the crime of rape, under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code Held: Defendant is GUILTY. Decision of the Court of Appeals affirmed Needs to be proven: (1) facts of sexual congress between accused Magabo and victim Dacanay; (2) mental retardation of the latter o Sexual intercourse was sufficiently established by victims testimony, corroborated by the testimony of the Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Freyra o Mental retardation of the victim was proven based from: Physical appearance Behavior and actuations she showed in the trial = mental deficiency is apparent from the halting and abbreviated answers given by Dacanay during her testimony Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death under Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. 8353. An allegation in the information of such knowledge of the offender is necessary as a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleaded in the indictment.21

Issue: Held: -

WON the father committed consummated rape according to the evidence presented? Yes, testimonial evidence of the victim is enough to convict o The following must be proven to convict a person of rape (RA 7659): Sexual congress With a woman By force and without consent For death penalty* Victim is under 18 years of age Offender is a parent ALL were found to be attendant by the Court o Testimony of the child victim is generally accorded full weight and credit consistent and unwavering even on cross-examination o Physical evidence of intact hymen is of no moment not an element in rape, even slightest penetration is enough to convict

No allegation in the information that the accused had knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time rape was committed. o Thus, notwithstanding proof of such knowledge, the accused can only be held liable for simple rape Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of Exemplary Damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is deleted. o

Title: People v. Dela Cruz Date: June 26, 2001 Ponente: Gonzaga-Reyes, J. Parties: Plaintiff: Madlang People! Defendant: Domingo Dela Cruz Relevant Laws: Art. 266-A when rape is committed when the victim is otherwise unconscious. Facts: Diana Lamsen (victim) was then 17 yrs. Old, a 4th year high school student, living with her aunt and guardian. Feb. 18, 1998 her aunt and uncle took her to the house of Virginia Dela Cruz, a known faith healer in their municipality, to have Dianas conditionfainting spells, often leaving her unconsciouscured. She stayed in Virginias residence until June 22, 1998, during which period she allegedly was rapedtwice. April 8, 1998 Diana, feeling sick, went to Virginias chapel, where she fainted and fell unconscious. Upon waking, she felt something hard inside her organ; when she opened her eyes, that was when she saw the accused withdrawing from her and putting on his briefs; she then noticed that she no longer was wearing her panty. Before the accused left, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone. June 8, 1998 This was when the second incident happened. On the previous night (June 7, 7:30pm), she suffered another fainting spell; then after she recovered, Virginia prayed over her and made her drink 2 bottles of Red Horse Beer as her treatment; after that she felt well enough to play Bingo until 11:30pm. She felt dizzy (DUH!) after the game, and so went up to her room on the 2nd floor and slept. When she woke up (June 8), the accused was already on top of her pumping, but she could not scream, as her mouth was gagged by a towel by the accused, or set herself free, as appellant was holding her down. Again, after the deed, appellant threatened her with death. A few days after, Diana was forced by the accused to write a letter purportedly showing that they were having an illicit affair and engaged in consensual sex. For fear of her life and her desire to go home, she did his bidding. When she was finally fetched by her parents, she reported the incidents to her aunt the day after, who reported it to her brother, a policeman. The medico-legal report shows: Old complete lacerations at the 3:00 and 8:00 positions of her sex organ. Defense of the accused: Sweetheart theory That he only had sex with complainant because she would always tempt him, and as proof he presented the letter by the complainant allegedly confirming the relation. RTC found accused guilty of rape. Hence this appeal. Issues: WON the accused is guilty of rape under 266-A. Held: I. Principles in receiving evidence: (1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, thought innocent, to disprove. (2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. (3) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw

As applied to facts: A.) Complainants evidence The complainant delivered her testimony in a straightforward manner, therefore her testimony deserves credit. -The young Filipina stereotype, as usual: she would not testify were it not for the sole desire to bring the perpetrator to justice, etc. B.) Sweetheart theory A 17-year old girl maintaining illicit relations with a grown man twice her age is incredible enough, and now the accused would have the court believe that complainant is the aggressor, that is, that she initiates the romantic liaisons. It simply is against common human experience. -Again, Barrio-girl stereotype: she would not arbitrarily put to prison a man, she being naive and unsophisticated, etc. C.) Testimonies of defense The testimonies of accuseds wife and brother are biased, as they do not want the accused to go to jail. D.) The letter That she was forced to write the letter is more credible. E.) Failure to report earlier Dianas failure to report the incident earlier cannot detract from her credibility, as silence and hesitation can be attributed to her age. Moreover during the said period she was under the custody of Virginia and Domingo (accused), hence his moral ascendancy and his threats prevented her from reporting the incident. Besides, when she was finally fetched by her parents she immediately reported the atrocities of the accused to her aunt. F.) Denial vs. Positive Identification Accuseds denial of committing the said crimes cannot defeat Dianas positive and unequivocal narration of the events. Denial it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. WHEREFORE; Under 266-A when rape is committed when the victim is otherwise unconscious; And as the accused employed force and intimidation, the Court finds the accused GUILTY! Doctrine: A girl, who was susceptible to fainting spells, was raped on two occasions: first, when she fell unconscious in the chapel; second, when she was asleep. Also, on the second occasion, she could not scream for help as her mouth was gagged with a towel; and she could not set herself free as the accused held her down, he being of greater weight. She also did not report the incident during the said period because of the threats made by the accused. The Court found the accused guilty of rape under 266-Araping the victim when she is unconscious and using force and intimidation.

strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

RAPE (continuation) PEOPLE V. SIAO Ponente: Gonzaga-Reyes, J. Nature: Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Cebu City FACTS: Rene Siao (accused-appellant) and Reylan Gimena were charged with the crime of rape committed as follows: o Siao and Gimena, at about 3pm on May 27, 1994, connived and confederated together and had carnal knowledge with minor Estrella Raymundo (14 yrs old) o RTC convicted Siao of rape as principal by induction; acquitted Gimena because he acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal, if not greater injury. Evidence for the prosecution: o EstrellaRaymundo (a probinsyana) and Joy Raymundo (cousin of Estrella) are house maids of Siaos family. Reylan is also a helper/houseboy of Siao. o 3pm of May 27, 1994: Siao ordered Reylan to pull Estrella to the room of the women so Reylan dragged her toward

the womens quarters. Once inside, Siao pushed her to the wooden bed (naomog) and pointed a pistol colored white at Reylan and the face of Estrella. o Siao asked Estrella to choose one among a pistol, candle or bottle of sprite. He also told Reylan, Reylan, birahi si Ester (Do something to Ester). o Siao lighted the candle and dropped the melting candle on her chest. She chose the bottle of sprite and then made to lied down on her back on the bed with her head hanging over one end. Siao then poured sprite into her nostrils and then she was made to spread her arms. While dropping the sprite, Siao pointed the gun at her face. She felt dizzy and her eyesight became blurred. She tried to cover her breasts with her arms but Siao asked Reylan to hold her hands. o Siao tied her feet and hand with an electric cord or wire. He untied her but tied her back with the same wire. He pointed the pistol at her again and ordered her to remove her pants and t-shirt. She sat on the bed and did as she was told. When she was naked, he told her to take the initiative (ikaw and mauna sa lalaki). He pointed the gun again at her temple. o He told Reylan to remove his shorts but he refused. He did not remove his shorts but let his penis out. He then asked Reylan to rape Estrella. He refused but was threatened that if he doesnt do it, both of them will be killed. Estrella was made to suck the penis of Reylan. Reylan eventually got on top of her and made push-and-pull movements for 10minutes. Siao held her legs while Reylan was doing it. Siao told them to do it again and threated to kill if they dont, this time side by side. After that, they did the dog position (patuwad). Reylan was already so tired but obeyed all the orders anyway. o After which, they heard someone knock on the door, Teresita Panares, Siaos older sister. Siao ordered them to go to the boys room and warned them, If you will tell the police, I will kill all your mothers. o At 6pm, Estrella and Joy sought permission to go home. An old man saw them on the way, saw Estrella crying and took them to his house. The incident was reported to the police and arrested Reylan. They looked for Siao but he was nowhere to be found. Siaos version of the story: o Stupid Siao. Natnat o There was a commotion at Siaos house: Reylan was accusing Estrella of stealing his wristwatch. He said that since the Raymundo cousins came to their house, a lot things have been stolen. Estrella agreed to just pay Reylan for the value of the watch. She also admitted having stolen Ms. Panares P1,300, but not the necklace. She gave back the P800 but was unable to pay back the remaining sum because she used it to purchase some things. o Reylan was able to recover his watch when Estrella revealed to her whe she hid it (under the ironing board). o Meanwhile, Ms. Panares went to the barangay to report the stealing of the necklace. She came back with a barangay tanod, to whole Estrella confessed and begged forgiveness. They went to the barangay hall where Ms. Panares decided to give Estrella a second chance. o The cousins were allowed to go back to Leyte. An hour after, some people went to the house looking for them. o Siao said that he was unaware of all the developments in the house. o At 9pm the next day, the barangay tanod came looking for Reylan. The following evening, the police went looking for him and was brought to the station. o Estrella would file a complaint against Reylan and Siao. However, before the trial commenced, Estrellas father went to the Siaos and demanded P1M to drop the rape case. ISSUE: WON Siao is guilty of rape.

HELD: YES! The court is of the view that a 14-yr old girl from the province, nave and innocent to the ways of the world can concoct serious charges and fabricate a story of aberrant sexual behavior against her employer. Failure to present the weapon used (gun) does not weaken the prosecutions evidence. It is not essential. It is an established rule that the sole testimony of the offended party is sufficient to sustain the accuseds conviction if it rings the truth or is otherwise credible. Estrellas and Reylans testimonies corroborate each other. It was proven that Reylan and Ester were forced and intimidated at gunpoint to have carnal knowledge of each other in 3 different positions, despite some inconsequential inconsistencies. They do not affect the essential fact of commission of rape, that is carnal knowledge through force and intimidation. If at all, they serve as proof that the witnesses were not coached and rehearsed. APPELANT Ejaculating thrice in a span of 30mins is not possible COURT The important consideration in rape is not the emission of semen but the penetration of female genitalia. Well-settled is the rule that penetration, however slight, and not the ejaculation, is what constitutes rape. Lust is no respecter of time and place. It was not improbable for them not to attempt to flee because they were intimidates the whole time. They were probably experiencing a mental shock which is not improbable for most victims. Again, the presence of other people does not prevent someone from perpetrating rape. This is also not improbable because there was no one else to turn to. This contention is self-serving and is uncorroborated.

The rape took place within earshot and near the presence of other people. Reylan and Estrella did not make a dash for freedom during the 10mins from the womens quarter to the mens quarter. A barangay tanod was present during the time the rape was committed. Unusual for someone to report the incident to an old man she chanced upon on her way home. Estrellas father asked for P1M.

The rape was committed after the effectivity of R.A. 7659. The governing law in this case as held by the trial court is Art. 365, as amended by the R.A for rape with the use of deadly weapon (punished by reclusion perpetua to death). However, the trial court overlooked the aggravating circumstance of ignominy, which should have been appreciated since Estrella was not only raped in the missionary position. In the present complaint, however, there was no allegation that a deadly weapon was used so this cannot be taken into account. Thus, it is just simple rape punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Estrella shall also be awarded moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P20,000(because of the presence of an aggravating circumstance), aside from the civil liability arising from the offense in the amount of P50,000.

PEOPLE v SILVANO [309 SCRA 362 (1999); Per Curiam] NATURE: Automatic review of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 95 FACTS: On January 23, 1996 at 10:30 pm, Sheryl Silvano was awakened by her father, accused David Silvano. He scolded her for coming home late. The accused (who appeared tipsy) lifted her shirt (which she said was her usual punishment since she was 13). He proceeded to touch her private parts saying, You did something wrong and I told you I

would do that as a punishment to you. He then inserted his private organ into Sheryls private organ and went through the motions of sexual intercourse. The following morning Sheryl went to school at Jose Abad Santos Memorial School in Quezon City. On February 12, Sheryl left their house at Scout Rallos, Quezon City and stayed at her maternal grandmothers house at Scout Lozano, Quezon City. She could no longer bear the punishment in the form of sexual abuse which she had been getting since she was 13. When she was asked to go back to her parents house, Sheryl confided to her mother and grandmother the real reason why she didnt want to go back home. Thereupon, the mother and grandmother sought the assistance of General Hercules Cataluna, CPD Chief, who is married to the mothers cousin. It must be noted that after cops invited the accused to the precinct without a warrant of arrest. The accused was charged with rape by his daughter to which he pleaded not guilty. The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to death. On automatic appeal, appellant David Silvano denied the accusation and argued that the charge leveled against him was a mere ploy of his wife and the latters relatives for the purpose of severing their marital relationship. ISSUE: WON David Silvano is liable for the rape of his daughter. YES. HELD: Conviction AFFIRMED. The qualified rape of an under aged relative for which appellant was charged is classified as a heinous crime and penalized under Section335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 11, Republic Act 7659. (please see!) In proving such felony, the prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of 1) sexual congress 2) with a woman 3) by force and without consent, and in order to warrant the imposition of death penalty, the additional elements that 4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape and 5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim should also be alleged and proven. All such elements are undisputedly present in this case. The victim herein at the age of 16 years was subjected to forced sexual intercourse by appellant, as duly shown in her testimony The victims claim that she was ravished is corroborated by the medical findings of the physician who examined her. Findings include the discovery of deep healed lacerations on the victims hymen. It is settled that carnal knowledge is consummated by the mere touching of the womans labia of the pudendum by the male sex organ. Rupture of the hymen is not required. Absence of fresh lacerations does not disprove rape. Appellant claims that the victim offered only token resistance. However, this cannot be construed as a voluntary submission to appellants desires. The force, violence or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on age, size and strength but also on their relationship. Here, the accused outweighs and is older than the victim. Furthermore, the accused is the victims father. The latters moral ascendancy over the former substitutes for violence or intimidation. Appellant contends that it would have been impossible for him to have raped his daughter so early in the evening in a room where her brothers are sleeping. However, there is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion. When charged before the court, appellant denied the accusation and asserted that he gave the victim financial, material and educational support. His excuse regarding support is non-sequitur. The fact that he supports her does not give him the license to rape her. He is obliged to support her under Art 195 and Art 220 of the Family Code. The court even said that the accused violated the obligations of parents enumerated in the Family Code since he was instilling in his daughter a very sick notion of sex and an even sicker notion of discipline. The imputation by appellant of wrongful motive to his wife who allegedly used their daughter to sever their marital ties is too shallow. It is unnatural for a mother to subject her daughter to such humiliation and trauma. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove this allegation, and thus, the victims testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Since rape is crime to which only two people are privy, the case revolves around the credibility of the complainant. The trial court found the victims testimony to be logical, straightforward and candid. Even if victims

testimony is uncorroborated, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof so long as it meets the test of credibility, and the prosecution is not bound to present witnesses other than the victim. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is apparent, the court has no option but to apply the penalty of death.(Art. 47 RPC) Again a little note, since the arrest of the accused was without a warrant the evidence gathered from the arrest should have been inadmissible. However, the counsel for the accused was not able to allege such fact. Further, the Court made sure the accused was aware of this omission in their plea, despite this they still werent able to act on it. Thus he was enjoined from raising such issue. Besides, even if all the evidence gathered from the arrest were to be made inadmissible, the conviction would still sustain since the Court relied heavily (almost solely) on the victims testimony.

PEOPLE V BALATAZO (2004) PONENTE: CALLEJO, SR, J. Nature: Appeal from a decision of the RTC FACTS: February 6, 1991Victim, Marina Cano Dapo whos 24 years old but with the mentality of a child, was raped by their neighbor (also her mothers first cousin), Ricado Cado Balatazo. The accused was also a barangay councilman of Barangay Mainit Norte, Perez, Quezon Province. Marina narrated the event to her mother after the latter found contusions on her knees one day. The accused made her lie down, kissed and undressed her, and then pulled her yellow-colored underwear, and inserted his private organ into her vagina. He put her clothes down and left the house. Adelaidas knees sustained contusions when accused threatened her before she was raped. When he mounted her, he pinned her knees with his leg. July 31, 1991 Criminal complaint was filed, alleging that accused raped victim through force, violence, threat and intimidation (RPC 335 par. 1) During the trial, it was proven that Marina was indeed a mental retardate. o Marina testified that she could not read nor write, except for her name. o The barangay captain testified that it was common knowledge in their barangay. He also said that Marina had typhoid fever when she was 9 yo and has acted like a child ever since. Medical findings:Old hymenal laceration, vaginal vaults can admit 2 fingers with ease, pregnancy test negative. Accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence, claiming that Marina failed to prove by her testimony that he threatened, forced or intimidated the her into having sexual intercourse with him. He also could not be indicted of Rape under par. 2 which includes rape of a mental retardate because it is not alleged in the information. o Also, he would be deprived of his right to be informed of the nature of the crime charged against him RTC: Ruled that the accused is guilty of rape under par. 2 because Marina is feeble minded, mentally ill, incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse. The absence of an allegation in the criminal complaint that the victim was a mental retardate was merely a procedural defect. Issue: W/N the accused is guilty of rape under par. 1. Held: YES. Accused found guilty under RPC 335 par. 1. Sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay P50k as civil indemnity and P50k as moral damages. OSG: Trial court is right. The procedural defect was waived when the accused failed to object on the to the evidence of the prosecution proving that the victim a mental retardate. SC: The prosecution was able to prove that there is force, violation

or intimidation. It bears stressing that force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this case, the victim is a mental retardate. The appellant took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Hence he is guilty of forcible rape. o The use of roce by the appellant in achieving his lust is belied by the testimony of Adelaida that when she hurried home on the day that the appellant abused Marina, she noticed contusions on her daughters knees. o Commonwealth vs. Stephens: A forcible ravishment is one done against a womans will; if it is done against her will, it is of necessity without her consent; if she is insane or too weak of mind to give a rational consent, then it follows that she has been forcibly ravished. Further: Marina did not fabricate the charges because she lacks the capacity of articulation and inventiveness. The accused failed to adduce any controverting evidence; opted to merely file a Demurrer to Evidence

common law wife of Ireneo. Attempted rape was charged on accused since it was not proved that the penis penetrated the organ of Mary Joy. There here was failure of the performance of all acts of execution which would produce the crime of rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance (timely arrival of the victims brother) Estrella: Prosecution failed to prove the rape at whatever stage was committed. These acts, as described by Estrella, are insufficient to prove that the appellant intended to have carnal knowledge of Estrella. He did not lie on top of Estrella or even made the motion of removing his underwear. In fact, he kept his clothes on during the entire time that he was in the bedroom. All that the appellant was able to do was touch her private parts. From the circumstances thus proved, the appellant can only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness.

TITLE 11: CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Chapter 2 Acts of Lasciviousness TITLE: PEOPLE V. ALCOREZA DATE: October 5, 2001 PONENTE: Puno, J. PARTIES: People of the Philippines, plaintiff Ireneo Alcoreza y Marcelino FACTS: Accused was charged with his rape by his 14 year old daughter Estrella and 2 counts of statuory rape by his 11 year old stepdaughter Mary Joy Mary Joy was raped on on one Sunday while he siblings were all in church. He kissed and embrace her, inserted his penis into her organ. Mary Joy was again along in the house with the accused but this time his penis only touched her organ but failed to insert it as Mary Joys 8 yr old brother Benito arrived, who saw his sister naked. Mary Joy the next day had the opportunity to tell her grandfather (Benito) the next day about the ordeal. Benito soon found out that Estrella had also been subject to this abuse ever since she was 8. The siblings always kept their bedroom door open at night at the insistence of their father. He came in once trying to lift Estrellas clothes up. He struggled to the point that he was almost caught by his partner, Melita. For the charges, he denied the charges of Estrella. For Mary Joy, he proferred an alibi, saying that in the instances charged against him, he was out collecting funeral contributions for one of his jeepney driver friends. Trial court found Ireneo guilty for attempted rape of Estrella and 2 counts of statutory rape of Mary Joy, with the penalty death for the latter. ISSUE: What are the crimes committed and WON these crimes warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubts HELD: Yes to the first issue. Accused is convicted of simple statutory rape with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, plus attempted rape with an indeterminate prison term of 6 years PC min to 12 yrs PM as max. (Mary Joy). Acts of lasciviousness under with 6months AM min to 6 yrs PC max. Mary Joy: Accused tried to indicate that the testimony of Mary Joy was untenable, due to certain inconsistencies. The court indicated that it is common for testimonies to have certain inconsistencies because rape victims are not expected to remember every detail. Her claims are backed by the strong medical findings as well. Relationship as a qualifying circumstance was not appreciated for the statutory rape charge since Melita, mother of Mary Joy was only the

TITLE: UNITED STATES VS BAILOSES DATE: March 16, 1903 PONENTE: Ladd, J. PARTIES Complainant: United States (Appellee) Defendant: Isaac Bailoses (Appellant) RELEVANT LAW: Art 439, Old Penal Code: o Abusos Deshonestos (indecent assault) FACTS: Sequence of events: o Saturina Emiterio (prosecuting witness) owed Bailoses the president of the pueblo - a peso. Bailoses sent several policemen to her house to arrest her. o They then brought her to Bailoses house where she was beaten with a stick and subsequently forced to take all of her clothes off and dance before him and many other people. Defense: o He wasnt motivated by libido, but by the desire to punish the witness for not returning the peso ISSUE: WON Bailoses is guilty of abusos deshonestos HELD: Yes. Judgment AFFIRMED. Sure, perhaps the defendants purpose was to take revenge on the witness for not paying him BUT the SC cannot believe that there was no admixture of lasciviousness in the thoughts and purposes of a man who could devise such a method to exact satisfaction from a woman for the nonpayment of a debt. Even if the facts are to be viewed from an objective as well as a subjective standpoint, abusos deshonestos may still be predicated upon them PEOPLE VS BALBAR November 29, 1967 Ponente: Makalintal, J. Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffs TIBURCIO BALBAR, defendant Facts: (Lian, Batangas) August 20, 1960 - Defendant Balbar allegedly entered the room where Esther Gonzales, the victim, was conducting her classes. Defendant allegedly placed his arms around her and kissed her on the eye. Shocked, complainant instinctively pushed Balbar away and tried to flee. Defendant allegedly brought out his "daga" (a local dagger) and pursued complainant, catching up with her before she was able to get out of the room. Defendant embraced her again, at the same time holding on to his "daga". They both fell to the floor, as a result of which complainant sustained slight physical injuries.

Two informations, one for Direct Assault Upon A Person in Authority and another for Acts of Lasciviousness were filed against the defendant. The accused filed a motion to quash the complaints (double jeopardy). CFI of Batangas granted the request of the defendant. Criminal case 823 (for direct assault) was quashed because the filed complaint lacked the information that the offender had knowledge that the person he is attacking is a person in authority (no express allegation). Court believes that the most that one can file against the suspect is unjust vexation/physical injuries. Direct assault is committed "by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, . . . shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance." (RPC Art 148) and teachers are deemed to be persons in authority (RPC 152) Decision of the lower court is appealed in the SC. Issues: 1. WON the accused had knowledge that the victim was a person in authority. YES 2. WON the lower court was erroneous in dismissing the information for Criminal Case 841 (Acts of Lasciviousness). NO Held/Ratio: 1. The accused indeed had knowledge that the victim was a teacher. He attacked her in the classroom (DUH) while she was engaged in the performance of her duties. It doesn't matter that the accused did not know that the victim was a person of authority. That was a not a matter of fact but rather it was a matter of law. The decision of the lower court dismissing the Direct Assault Complaint and substituting Unjust Vexation/Physical Injuries is set aside and the case is remanded back. 2. The lower court was not erroneous in dismissing the case for Acts of Lasciviousness. According to US vs Gomez, acts which would qualify as an Act of Lasciviousness would vary depending on the circumstances of the case. In the present case, an act of "lewd" design can not be attributed to the accused. The factual setting, i.e., a schoolroom in the presence of complainant's students and within hearing distance of her co-teachers, rules out a conclusion that the accused was actuated by a lustful design or purpose or that his conduct was lewd or lascivious. It may be that he did embrace the girl and kiss her but, this of itself would not necessarily bring the case within the provision of Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. WHEREFORE, the order of the court a quo quashing the information for Direct Assault is hereby set aside and this case is remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits; and with respect to the dismissal of the information for Acts of Lasciviousness, the same is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs. PEOPLE v. CEBALLOS J. Carpio Morales | Sept 2007 Appellant/Accused: Enrique Cabrales Ceballos Jr. Others involved: AAA (daughter, born 1984); BBB (daughter, born 1981); CCC (Ceballos wife) FACTS: December 1995 o After BBB arrived home from the church with her aunt, she learned that her mother CCC had left the house with all of BBBs siblings, following an argument with her husband and appellant, Ceballos o At about 2:00am, BBB awakened to find Ceballos on top of her. He succeeded in inserting his penis inside her vagina. o BBB did not inform her mother about the incident, as Ceballos threatened to kill them and create a scandal in the neighbourhood. o After that, BBB was raped by appellant on the average of ten times every month In 1996, CCC left to work in Qatar December 1997 (CC-55119)

o 12-year-old AAA and four of her siblings were sleeping at the second floor of their house in Caloocan City when their father, Enrique Ceballos, touched AAAs breast and vagina, catching her by surprise o Ceballos removed AAAs short pants and underwear and tried to insert his penis inside her vagina but failed o Instead, while AAA was in a lying position, he inserted his finger inside her vagina and mashed her breasts o AAA boxed the appellant and cried, but Ceballos covered her mouth and subdued her. After, she fell asleep. o AAA did not report the incident because appellant had threatened to kill the members of the family if she did. January 1998 One night, this time while AAA was asleep on the upper floor with five siblings, she was awakened as appellant Ceballos forcibly undressed her and succeeded in inserting his penis inside her vagina February 1998 AAA was again awakened in the night while asleep with her siblings. Ceballos removed her underwear, inserted a finger then inserted his penis inside her vagina. March 1998 AAA was awakened as Ceballos took off her clothes and directed her to lie on her side, which she did. Ceballos positioned himself at her back and inserted his penis inside her vagina, and she could not offer any resistance on account of her position. After Ceballos ejaculated, he fell asleep. November 1998 o Between 2:00-3:00am on November 5, Ceballos removed AAAs short pants and had sexual intercourse with her. This time AAA offered no resistance at all, feeling it would be futile. o On November 19, AAA finally confessed to some classmates in high school what she had been through. November 21, 1998 AAA was brought to the Northern Police District where she executed a sworn statement charging her father Ceballos with rape o Dr. Madrid of the PGH Child Protection Unit found a healed laceration on the part of the genitalia beside the hymen, and came to the conclusion that Physical findings are highly suspicious of sexual abuse. When BBB learned that Ceballos had also raped her younger sister, she broke her silence. But BBB was no longer examined as she was by that time already cohabiting with her boyfriend. When CCC returned from Qatar in November 1998, she received letters from her husband Ceballos in jail, asking for forgiveness. DEFENSE Ceballos said it was impossible for him to commit the acts complained of, as the family of his sister EEE was also living with them in the same house o He denied having asked forgiveness, saying if he did, it was only because he had been strict with them. In fact, he said AAA only filed the charges because he was strict. He could not think of any reason why BBB would file a criminal case against him. o DDD, Ceballos mother, alleged that CCC instigated her daughters to file the case against him because he had objected to CCCs going abroad. The RTC found the testimonies of AAA and BBB straightforward, categorical, and convincing and convicted Ceballos of rape in all charges, except Criminal Case No. C-55119, where appellant was convicted only of acts of lasciviousness o For the conviction of acts of lasciviousness, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional o For the conviction in the rape cases, he was sentenced to death by lethal injection, and to at least P200,000 in damages The appellate court affirmed the RTC ruling but increased the damages and modified the penalty for acts of lasciviousness o There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance alleged and proven in this case, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its medium period... Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law Appellant should, therefore, be sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as maximum

ISSUES: WON appellate court erred in convicting Ceballos HELD: NO. Conviction upheld, with modifications. In lieu of death penalty, appellant sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without parole. 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 observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts. Appellants argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails. As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. As for appellants allegation that AAA and BBB falsely charged him as he was strict and had had quarrels with his wife CCC, the same was correctly brushed aside by the appellate court as puerile and . . . too flimsy to merit even scant consideration. *Re-classification of Rape Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353[68] (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) introduced Articles 266-A, 266-B, 266-C and 266-D on Rape, and effective October 22, 1997, rape was reclassified as a crime against persons. Appellants conviction in Criminal Case No. C-55119, for acts of lasciviousness, is in order. While under R.A. No. 8353, which was, as reflected above, already in effect when the criminal act was committed in December 1997, the act of inserting a finger into anothers genital is penalized as rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the Information charged appellant with rape still under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, appellant cannot be convicted of rape by means of sexual assault even if it was established that he inserted his finger into the vagina of AAA. To do so would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. It bears noting, however, that the crime of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in the crime of rape. The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of lasciviousness. Relationship is under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances), aggravating in acts of lasciviousness. Appreciating relationship as an aggravating circumstance and applying the ISL, appellant should suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum. In view of the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the death penalty can no longer be imposed. Chapter 3: Seduction, Corruption of Minors and White Slave Trade TITLE: DE GUZMAN VS. PEREZ DATE: 5 July 2006 PONENTE: Corona, J. PARTIES: (Petition for Certiorari) Petitioners (1): Roberto P. De Guzman Respondents (2): Hernando B. Perez (Secretary of Justice) and Shirley F. Aberde RELEVANT LAW: Article 59 (4), PD 603 Crimes. Criminal liability shall attach to any parent who: (4) Neglects the child by not giving him the education which the familys station in life and financial conditions permit. Section 10 (a), RA 7610 Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Childs Development. (a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs development including those covered by

Article 59 of PD No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. (emphasis supplied) FACTS: Roberto and Shirley became sweethearts while studying law in UST. Their studies were interrupted when Shirley became pregnant. She gave birth to Robby de Guzman on 2 Oct 1987. The couple was never married; Roberto married another woman and had 2 children with her. Roberto only sent money and support for Robbys schooling twice, in 1992 and in 1993. When Robby fell ill in 1994, Roberto gave Shirley P7, 000 for hospitalization and medical expenses. In 1994, Shirley accepted a job as a factory worker in Taiwan for 2 years. While she was able to support Robby through this employment, it became difficult later on to further support him and pay for his education. Roberto, on the other hand, was the manager of his family corporation, and lived a luxurious lifestyle (e.g. 5 luxury cars, palatial Ayala Heights home, children by wife were sent to expensive schools). In 2000, Shirley demanded support for Robby who was about to enter a good high school (De La Salle Lipa). Roberto ignored this demand, and Shirley was forced to rely on her relativesinstead. Shirley files a criminal complaint for abandonment and neglect of child under Art. 59 (2) and (4) of PD 603, with Office of City Prosecutor of Lipa City. Roberto, in his counter-affidavit, claimed that he never abandoned or neglected Robby, whom he even readily acknowledged as his son. He claimed to have paid P7, 000 for his sons hospitalization as well as other times when he was sick. Moreover, he claimed financial incapacity; according to him, Shirley was the one capable of supporting Robby as he was just dependent on his father. To prove Robertos financial capacity, Shirley attached a General Information Sheet that showed that Roberto owned P750, 000 worth of paid-up corporate shares. Roberto claimed that his father again owned these, and that he could not withdraw or use these shares. Ruling of City Prosecutor and Sec. of Justice: City Prosecutor of Lipa City dismissed complaint for abandonment, but found cause to charge Roberto with neglect of child, punishable under Art. 59 (4) of PD 603 in relation to Sec. 10 of RA 7610. Subsequently, an information was filed in RTC Lipa for the crime of neglecting a minor child. Roberto filed with the Secretary of Justice a petition for review of the City Prosecutors resolution as he claimed there was no probable cause to charge him. Sec. Perez dismissed this petition for review, and affirmed the City Prosecutors resolution. - Robertos luxurious lifestyle was circumstantial evidence of his financial capacity. - Robertos defense that everything belonged to his father was a defense which should properly be raised in trial. - Roberto did not deny allegations that he failed to support Robbys education besides the two instances in 1992 and 1993. ISSUE(S): (1) WON Sec. of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case (2) WON a parent who fails or refuses to do his part in providing for his childs education which the familys station in life and financial conditions permit, can be charged for neglect of child under Art. 59 (4) of PD 603 (in relation to RA 7610) HELD: PETITION DISMISSED. No. The Supreme Court ruled that Sec. Perezs resolutions were based on evidence on record and grounded in law. These were not issued in a capricious, whimsical or arbitrary manner; no need to countermand these resolutions. (1) Yes. Petitioner can be charged with violation of Art. 59 (4) of PD 603 but not in relation to RA 7610.

Elements of violation against Article 59 (4), PD 603: (1) the offender is a parent; (2) he or she neglects his or her own child; (3) the neglect consists in not giving education to the child and (4) the offenders station in life and financial condition permit him to give an appropriate education to the child. The law intends to punish the neglect of any parent, which neglect corresponds to the failure to give the child the education which the familys station in life and financial condition permit. The irresponsible parent cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of his neglect by invoking the other parents faithful compliance with his or her own parental duties. However, while petitioner can be indicted for violation of Article 59(4) of PD 603, the charge against him cannot be made in relation to Section 10(a) of RA 7610. o The law expressly penalizes any person who commits other acts of neglect, child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs development including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 but not covered by the Revised Penal Code. o The neglect of child punished under Article 59(4 ) of PD 603 is also a crime (known as indifference of parents) penalized under the second paragraph of Article 277 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, it is excluded from the coverage of RA 7610. Note: Nonetheless, the Supreme Court made no determination of petitioners guilt or innocence of the crime charged. What has only been ascertained is the existence of probable cause only. Petitioners guilt should still be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding.

2. 2nd Information: MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5(a), ARTICLE III, REPUBLIC ACT 7610 History of the Case: He was convicted by the trial court, for violation of Paragraph 3, Section 5a, Article 3 of RA 7610. This was affirmed by the CA, only that it found him liable under Section 5b, not 5a. Petitioner contends that there was no rape, and that it was consensual. Issues: 1. W/N Petitioner could be convicted of an offense not designated in an Information 2. W/N Petitioner violated Sec. 5b, Article 3, RA 7610, as found by the CA 3. W/N The sweetheart theory may be invoked in cases of child prostitution and other sexual abuse prosecuted under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 Held/Ratio: 1. YES. The failure to designate the offense by statute, or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The facts stated in the amended information against petitioner correctly made out a charge for violation of Section 5(b), Article III, RA 7610, so he could be convicted of the offense on the basis of the facts recited in the information and duly proven during trial. 2. YES. All the 3 elements of Sec. 5b are present in this case: a. Accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; b. Act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, c. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse, i.e. when a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. While Paragraph (a) essentially punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution, abused primarily for profit. 3. NO. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person. Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is proscribed.

MALTO V PEOPLE [G.R. No. 164733 (September 21, 2007)] Ponente: Corona, J. [C2013 Digests] Nature: Petition for review of CAs decision convicting Malto (July 30, 2004) Facts: 28-year old Michal Malto (petitioner) was the professor of 17-year old AAA (private respondent) in Philosophy class, first semester of SY 97-98, in Assumption College. The following events occurred until the filing of the Information: 1. Oct. 3, 1997 AAA and her friends were talking about the movie Kama Sutra. Malto then butted in and said his xxx-rated film collection was better, and he invited them to watch it. 2. Oct. 10, 1997 Malto reiterated his invitation to AAA and her friends. AAA and one of her friends went with Malto to Anito Lodge, where the accused pulled both of them to the bed but they resisted, and nothing happened. They agreed to keep it secret. After, petitioner started to show amorous attention to her, and they became sweethearts. 3. Nov. 19, 1997 Malto invited AAA to lunch off campus. They went to Queensland Lodge where Malto again tried, but failed, to have sexual intercourse with her. 4. Nov. 26, 1997 Malto asked AAA to come with him to talk in private, and he brought her to Queensland Lodge. AAA wanted to have sex only after her debut, but upon threats by Malto that he would break up with her, she agreed. 5. July, 1999 AAA broke up with Malto. She found out that he had been either intimately involved with or sexually harassing his other students. Depressed, she told her mother, BBB, about all that had happened. BBB then filed an administrative complaint in Assumption College against Malto. She also lodged a complaint with the City Prosecutor. Charge in Information: 1. 1st Information: MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5(b), ARTICLE III, REPUBLIC ACT 7610

Other Notes: Violation of Sec. 5b, Article 3, RA 7610 and Rape are separate & distinct crimes. 1. Violation of Sec. 5b is under special law, and Rape is punished by the RPC. They both have different elements and are separate & distinct. So he can be held liable under Sec. 5b even after finding that there was no rape. PEOPLE v FONTANILLA Date: June 28, 1968 Ponente: J. Castro Parties: Fe Castro (victim) and Mariano Fontanilla (accused) Nature: Appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union FACTS: Fe Castro 15 year old virgin, niece of Magdalena Copio (51 years old, 2nd wife of the accused) Brought to the Fontanilla household by her mom to work as a helper

Alleged that during her stay (September to December 1960), Mariano Fontanilla (52 years old) succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her repeatedly 1st time September, one week after her arrival Castro repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of Fontanilla Promised her marriage, frightened and intimidated her Accused made love to her during the day when his wife was away and at night when Castros asleep Able to enter her room even when she bars her door at night Intimacies lasted for almost 3 months until Magdalena Copio caught them in flagrante on the kitchen floor Castro returned to her parents the next day and revealed everything to her mom 2 days later FONTANILLAS DEFENSE Impossible for him to have sex with Castro 1) there was no occasion during which he could have violated her chastity During the night the room of the complainant was locked and during the day he was always out in the fields Copio she was a light sleeper and would only sleep from 7 PM to 12 AM, during the day before going to the market, she would always tell Castro to go to the neighbors house 2) at the age of 52, his sexual potency had considerably waned Only had sexual intercourse with his wife once every week Castros just jealous of his children from the 1 st marriage who are now earning money Castro was just influenced by her uncle, Avelino Gaspian, to press charges against the accused Mayor Antonio Aquino of San Juan tried to settle the case by proposing that the accused pay the complainant P50 but was refused by Gaspian since it wasnt enough to defray what has happened to the victim MTC has no jurisdiction over the case ISSUES: 1. WON MTC has jurisdiction - YES 2. WON Fontanilla is guilty of qualified seduction - YES HELD: Judgment AFFIRMED. 1. Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of action. Section 87 (c), paragraph 3 of RA 296 as amended by RA 2613 "Justices of the peace in the capitals of provinces and Judges of Municipal Courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within the province in which the penalty provided by law do not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding three thousand pesos or both ...". Penalty prescribed for qualified seduction under A 337 of RPC is prision correctional in its minimum and medium periods Case therefore is within periphery of the concurrent jurisdiction of the court a quo 2. Fontanilla is guilty of qualified seduction. Lack of other witnesses understandable since there were no other persons in the house aside from the wife who at that time was out Final verdict would principally hinge on the testimonial of the complaining witness (Castro) Court upholds Castros frank and revealing testimony Testimony has inconsistencies but can be attributed to her minority (berely 16) , lack of education (reached only grade 3) and perceptibly low intelligence

Fontanillas contention that Castro has malevolent and ulterior motives flimsy rationalization and he didnt even attempt to substantiate Gaspians involvement He was just trying to protect the interest of his niece who was offered a small amount as settlement for an offense which caused Castros loss of her virginity Aquino admitted that he proposed the settlement but this happened after Castro filed charges against Fontanilla and was not due to the failure to reach a compromise No evidence supporting the marital promise Court held that this may be correct BUT: DECEIT although an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction, does not need to be proved or established in a charge of qualified seduction. It is replaced by abuse of confidence. The seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age , committed by any of the persons enumerated in art. 337 "is constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction ... even though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin, because in such a case, the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the said crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction ... taking into account the abuse of confidence on the part of the agent (culprit), an abuse of confidence which implies deceit or fraud." Castro claiming that she was beginning to like Fontanilla and enjoy the intercourse shows her honesty and sincerity Regarding Fontanillas defense Court did not recognize the two grounds presented. 1st Defense (NIGHT) the door of Castros room can still be opened despite the lock. (DAY) Fontanilla could easily go home earlier than his wife to do the acts 2nd Defense Testimonies by Fontanilla and his wife are not enough to rebut the presumption of potency. A party who claims loss of virility or waning potency must show proof with the aid of a competent and expert witness (doctor). - When Castro was asked what time they indulged in sexual intercourse she said Day and Night this would refer to the time not the frequency of the act No evidence that Castro (15 years old) was unchaste when she started living with the Fontanillas. o Her virginity therefore is presumed prior to the seduction given that shes single and will continue until overthrown by proof of the contrary

PEOPLE V. CRISOSTOMO Feb 17, 1923 J. Reyes Parties: appellants: Pedro Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, Casimiro Garde; Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, Bartolome Caguiat Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Cavite Relevant Laws: Art 445, RPC Facts: CFI Cavite: appellants: guilty of consummated crime of abduction through violence: o Pedro Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, Casimiro Garde (principals, sentenced 14 yrs, 8 mos, 1 day of reclusion temporal); o Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, Bartolome Caguiat (accomplices, sentenced 3 to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, with the accessories prescribed by law and to pay each a 1/6 part of the cost) o *Crisostomo: further sentenced to pay P500 as an endowment - Appellants Claim (For Appeal) CRI erred:

in holding that the evidence of prosecution was sufficient and that the facts alleged in the information were proven beyond a reasonable doubt 2) in holding that the conspiracy and connivance between the accused at the time of committing the supposed crime of abduction were duly proven 3) In sentencing the accused Crisostomo to pay P500 4) In holding that the crime committed by the accused falls within the provision of Art 445, RPC and in sentencing them in said article - 8 or 9:00 am, Dec 26, 1920, Macaria Gabriel, the offended party, and Crisostomo were found in the barrio of Salinas (Bacoor, Cavite) by her brother Constantino - Macaria: she was abducted against her will - defense: there was an agreement bet her and Crisostomo had escaped from Macarias parental house (but Court ruled it improbable since she was 30 y/o, should be more reflexive and cautious; daytime; was with her aunt) (also, Crisostomo later admitted to Lt. Sotto of the Constabulary that it was advisable to abduct Macaria) - evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that while Macaria and her aunt Candida Acuna were walking in the direction of their houses from that of Gregoria Acuna (to whom Macaria had paid the sum of P30), Crisostomo met them on the way. - Crisostomo, Lorenzo Alcoba, and Casimiro Garde, dragged Macaria and took her to a rice field (protested and fought back); Segundo Espiritu, Primitivo Alcoba, and Bartolome Caguiat prevented Candida from helping her niece - Gregoria Acuna heard cries; attacked the men holding Macaria with a club - they let go of her finally; they ran to the house and told Constantino (who chased after the men) Issue: - WON the element of unchaste designs is present - What crime can they be convicted of? Held/ Ratio: 1) NO. unchaste designs, the other element in abduction through violence, must be proven - Crisostomos intention: to get married to her in Bacoor - Court ruled that it wasnt unchaste since they had no impediments to marriage - ... 3. That it be committed with unchaste designs, that is to say, with an intent to abuse her. If such an intention does not exist, the act will no longer constitute the crime of abduction, but a crime against liberty, or that of illegal detention defined and punished in Art 495... - Macaria testified that Crisostomo kissed her many times while dragging her; but she was seasick and became unconscious, so it cant be proven (C. denied; accidental bumping of heads) - also, it does not appear from the evidence that the accused or any of them committed any slightly unchaste act (despite the fact that they were in control, had enough time to if they wanted to) - ILLEGAL DETENTION- since there is no argument that the accused deprived the offended party of her liberty wihtout placing her in an inclosure; because illegal detention might consist not only in imprisoning a person but also in detaining her or depriving her in any manner of her liberty ART 481- Any private individual who shall lock up or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor - defendants conspiring and confederating together, did intentionally, unlawfully, and criminally... through force kidnap [sic] Macaria... - BUT, was there proof of conspiracy?? - even if no witnesses testified to having seen or heard the accused conspire or confederate, it was apparent because of the simultaneous act of the defendants *how about ATTEMPTED COERCION? - NO, since there is doubt whether the acts committed by the defendant may be held as directly tending to compel the offended party to get married Dissent: J. Araullo, J. Villamor:

1)

- Crisostomo DID kiss Macaria; element of unchaste designs was apparent - US v. Ramirez (39 Phil 738): In a criminal action for abduction, in order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd designs, actual illicit criminal relations with the person abducted need not be shown. The intent to seduce the girl is sufficient. The evil purpose need not be established by positive evidence but may be inferred from acts or conduct proved

Chapter 4: Abduction Title: PEOPLE VS JOSE Date: February 6, 1971 Nature: Appeal from and automatic revue of a decision of Rizal CFI) FACTS (pili na lang kayo kung ung short or long) Short story: Magdalena Dela Riva (25 y/o movie actress) was abducted infront oh her house by 4 men in a car. She was brought into a hotel and was raped by all 4 men one after the other. They left her infront of Studio 5 so she could go home. When she got home, she told her mother what happened and 2 days later, they filed a complaint. One of the violators admitted to the crime and named the other 3. Not long after, all of them were apprehended Long story: June 26, 1967 Magdalena de la Riva (25 y/o movie actress) was going home from the ABS-CBN Studio, driving her car with her maid. She was already near her destination when a 2-door convertible car with 4 men aboard came abreast of her car and tried to bump it. While De la Riva tried to avoid the other car, they still almost collided 2 times. When the other driver stopped the car, he jumped out of it and rushed towards her. Dela Riva was scared and tooted the horn of her car repeatedly. Pineda (the driver) opened the door of De la Riva's car and grabbed the lady's arm. She held on tenaciously to her car's steering wheel and screamed with her maid Pineda succeeded in pulling her out of her car. the maid jumped out of the car and took hold of De la Riva's arm in an effort to free her from Pineda's grip. Pineda was able to drag De la Riva toward the other car When they were near the car the 3 men inside started to assist Pineda: Pineda drove fast and left the maid De la Riva entreated the appellants to release her; She was threatened that they will throw acid at her face if she did not keep quiet. 2 men seated on each side of her started molesting her She pleaded for her release saying that shes the breadwinner of the family. And that her father was already dead Aquino remarked that the situation was much better than he thought since no one could take revenge against them. When the car reached Makati, they blindfolded De la Riva. the car came to a stop at the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City Inside the room, her blindfold was removed. Pineda told her: "Magburlesque ka para sa amin." She first ignored it but reluctantly followed after (but she did it too slow that the guys got pissed) They started pushing her around. o 1 pulled down the zipper of her dress; o 1 unhooked her bra The guys took her clothes after ogling at her then left the room They started raping her one after the other (she struggled every single time so she was punched everywhere)

Jose Aquino then she went into a state of shock (they had to pour water to wake her up) o Pineda 2nd state of shock (poured water again) She heard them say that they had to revive her so she would know what was happening. o Canal Everytime one was raping her, the other three were just outside of the room After the appellants had been through with the sexual carnage, they told her to fix herself, to give the impression that nothing had happened to her. They told her to tell her mother that she was mistaken by a group of men for a hostess, and that when the group found out that she was a movie actress, she was released without being harmed. She was warned not to inform the police o If they were apprehended, they would simply post bail and later hunt her up and disfigure her face with acid. They blindfolded her again and led her down from the hotel room. They made her ride a taxi cab near TV 5 to make it look like she had just come from a studio When she reached her home, her mother, her brother-in-law Ben Suba, as well as several PC officers, policemen and reporters, were at the house. Upon seeing her mother, she ran toward her and said, "Mommy, Mommy, I have been raped. All four of them raped me." Upon her mother's instruction, she took a bath and a douche. The older woman also instructed her daughter to douche herself two or three times daily with a strong solution to prevent infection and pregnancy. The family doctor treated her physical injuries (he wasnt told about the rape, nor were the police officers) June 28 (2 days after) - Dela Riva filed a complaint and executed a statement In the afternoon of the same day, she submitted herself ito a medico-internal examination On the same evening, Jose admitted his crime and named his other companions o He said that everything was upon the initiative of Pineda and that only Pineda and Aquino were the ones who assaulted her Soon, the other 3 were apprehended Canal o admitted that all four of them participated in the commission of the crime o made it appear that insofar as he was concerned the complainant yielded her body to him on condition that he would release her Pineda o Admitted everything o Made it appear that Dela Riva voluntarily acceded to having sexual intercourse with him Medical Report: o presence of multiple contusions and bruises on different parts of the complainant's body o genital injuries. o extragenital physical injuries: could have been caused blows administered by a closed fist or by the palm of the hand, and could have been inflicted on the subject while she was being raped. could have been sustained on or about June 26, 1967. o genital examination: o o

Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

injuries on the subject's genitalia which could have been produced by sexual intercourse committed on June 26, 1967. failed to find spermatozoa. spermatozoa are not usually found in the vagina after the lapse of three days from the last intercourse possibility that the subject might have douched herself. Jose, Aquino, Canal pleaded not guilty while Pineda pleaded guilty. WON the accused were motivated by lewd designs. YES WON the accused rape Ms. de la Riva. WON the extrajudicial statements is admissible. WON there was a mistrial for Pineda. WON the enormous publicity of the case affected the decision of the trial court WON aggravating circumstances were present. WON the imposition of four death penalty is valid.

6. 7. Held ISSUE 1: YES Jose, Aquino and Caal: o deny having had anything to do with the abduction of Miss De la Riva. o point to Pineda (who entered a plea of guilty) as the sole author o they contend that even as to him the act was purged at any taint of criminality Because Dela Riva consented to perform a striptease show for a fee BUT this negated the existence of the element of lewd design. SC: o Dela Rivas testimony more than suffices to establish the crimes charged in the amended complaint. The claims of the accused that they were not motivated by lewd designs must be rejected as absolutely without factual basis. ISSUE 2: YES Jose, Aquino and Canal: o contend that the absence of semen in the complainants vagina disproves the fact of rape. Aquino o The abrasions on the cervix were caused by the tough tip of a noozle deliberately used to strengthen her alleged fabricated tale of rape (they claim they did not pay her so she got angry) SC: o Dr. Brion (the Docter that examined Dela Riva) stated that semen is not usually found in the vagina after three days from the last intercourse (she was examined 4 days after) o Also, she has douched herself within that period o The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but penetration. o Aquinos claim is absurd No sane woman would inflict injuries on her genital organ just to strike back at 4 strangers who allegedly would not pay her the sum of P900.00 due her for a striptease act. Another proof is that Dela Riva immediately told her mother that she was raped right after she got home o The statement was made by the complainant to her mother who, in cases of this nature was the most logical person in whom a daughter would confide the truth.

ISSUE 3: YES Accused: o extrajudicial statements should be excluded o statements were secured from them by force and intimidation o incriminating details were supplied by the police investigators. SC: o The statements were given in the presence of several people & subscribed & sworn to before the City Fiscal of QC, o Statements were replete w/ details which could hardly be known to the police; o although it is suggested that the authorities could have secured such details from their various informers, no evidence at all was presented to establish the truth of such allegation. o Even disregarding the in-custody statements of the accused, the Court finds that the mass of evidence for the prosecution on record will suffice to secure the conviction of the two. ISSUE 4: NO Pineda: o because the charge against him could be at worst, punishable by death, it was the duty of the court to insist on his presence during all stages of the trial. SC: o The contention is untenable o plea of guilty is mitigating, (ad admits all facts, including the aggravating circumstances) and it matters not that the offense is capital the admission covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime o it was not incumbent upon the trial court to receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in court. o It would be different if he requested to allow him to prove mitigating circumstances then the TC could grant his request ISSUE 5: NO Jose himself admits in his brief that the Trial Judge had not been influenced by adverse and unfair comments of the press, unmindful of the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to fair trial. ISSUE 6: YES Nighttime o purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes Abuse of superior strength o committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another Ignominy o in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her o brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating use of a motor vehicle. ISSUE 7: YES There is no doubt at all that the forcible abduction was an indispensable means to consummate the rape however, that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated each of the three succeeding crimes of the same nature can not legally be considered as still connected with the abduction they should be considered independently of the forcible abduction

Therefore the forceful abduction cannot be complexed with the rape The kind of rape commited was one punishable by reculsion perpetua to death As regards to the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (first crime) o Art. 48 RPC: penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. o appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. o there is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances as it would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed. TC erred in holding that only one death penalty can be imposed because man only has 1 life. o four crimes were committed, charged and proved (complex crime, and the 3 subsequent rapes) o "since it is the settled rule that once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is attributable to all, then each conspirator must be held liable for each of the felonious acts committed as a result of the conspiracy, regardless of the nature and severity of the appropriate penalties prescribed by law." Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: appellants Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced to four (4) death penalties; all of them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant of the sum of P10,000.00 in each of the four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs. PEOPLE V. GODINES AND MORENO Rape may absorb forcible abduction if the main objective was to rape the victim. Defendants-Appellants-Rapists: Rolando Godines and Danny Moreno Victim: Esther Ancajas Date: May 7, 1991 Ponente: Gancayco, J. Relevant Provision: Art. 342. Forcible abduction. The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal. The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years of age. Facts: In the evening of March 17, 1988, Esther Ancajas was sleeping in the house of Alejandro Vilaksi. She was awakened by a commotion coming from the adjacent room of Vilaksi and his wife. She lit a lamp to find out what was going on and she saw the defendants-appellants talking to the couple. They eventually hacked Vilaksis wife, stole the couples money and prepared to leave. In the meantime, Esther tried to escape from the house with her small child. However, the defendants saw her and grabbed her. The two men forcible brought Esther and her child to a nearby vacant lot with tall grasses. Godines had a pistol and Moreno had a knife and they threatened to kill Esther if she resisted. As they were dragging her, they fondled her private parts. Upon arrival at the vacant lot, they took turns raping her. While one was raping her, the other was holding on to her child. After satisfying their desires, they left and Esther took refuge in the house of a neighbor to whom she narrated the ordeal. Later she informed her parents and the authorities. She submitted herself to a medical examination and the municipal health officer who examined her later testified that it is possible that Esther had been raped.

Defendants Alibi: On the day the alleged crime happened, they attended a religious service in the afternoon (weh) then after the service Godines went to his friends house with his family and because he was ill, he stayed there for the night. Moreno also stayed at his friends house that evening. Trial Court: The TC did not sustain the version of the defense. Both are guilty of rape. The crime of forcible abduction is absorbed by rape in this case. Motion for reconsideration denied. Issues: 1. WON the defendants committed the crime as alleged. YES 2. WON forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape. YES Held: 1. The Court found no reason to reverse the TCs decision. While appellants insist that there are no conclusive medical findings pointing to rape, a medical exam is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. At any rate, the abrasions on Esthers body confirm that she had been physically violated by force. Also, Esther was able to positively identify the rapists. She had no motive to conjure serious charge against them. The Court reiterated that it is very difficult to believe that a woman would be willing to undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience and scandal of a public prosecution for rape, as well as an examination of the private parts of her anatomy, if her intention is not to bring her rapists to justice. Moreover, the findings of the TC on the credibility of witnesses command the highest respect from the SC. Lastly, the appellants defense of alibi cannot be relied upon because it does not preclude the possibility that they were present at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. They were only 2-3 km. away from the scene if their alibi is to be believed. 2. The TC correctly held that forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main objective of the appellant is to rape the victim. No doubt the evidence show the appellants through force and intimidation and conspiring with each other successfully raped the victim by taking turns in raping her while the other held her child and threatened her against resisting. Two counts of rape were committed by each appellant as principal. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Dispositive: Wherefore, the Court hereby modifies the appealed judgment by finding each of the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two rapes, so each of them is hereby imposed the penalty of life imprisonment for each rape and each to indemnify the offended party P50,000.00 with costs against defendants. PEREZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS Nov. 29, 1988 Cortes, J. Facts: Oct. 21, 1974, Yolanda Mendoza filed a complaint against Eleuterio Perez for Consented Abduction. Perez pleaded not guilty and was convicted. Perez appealed and CA reversed the TC. What happened was seduction and not abduction Mendoza filed another complaint. This time, its Qualified Seduction. Perez filed a motion to quash but this was denied. Perez filed a petition for certiorari with the SC but the SC referred the case to the IAC. IAC said that he should file it to the RTC because it refers to acts of inferior courts. Perez then filed it to RTC but was dismissed.

Issue: 1) 2) 3) Held: 1)

Perez filed a petition for review with the CA but it was denied. The decision sought to be reviewed became final and executory. (not filed within 15 days) WON Perez filed an appeal to the RTC. NO. He filed a petition for certiorari WON Perex can invoke double jeopardy. NO. This is not double jeopardy. WON Mendoza is barred to file a complaint of Qualified Seduction. NO. Mendoza is not barred. PETITION DENIED. Appeal is not the proper remedy from a denial of a motion to quash. A motion to quash is an interlocutory order and does not finally dispose of a case. The remedy should have been an ordinary appeal to the CA by filing a notice of appeal with the court within 15 days. Petitioner was not denied due process because, when he filed a wrong motion, the court ruled that it is without prejudice to its refilling in the proper venue. Double jeopardy is when you try a person for the same offense/identical offense. Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction may have risen from the same set of facts. However, this does not preclude the filing of another information against him if from those facts, two distinct offenses, each requiring different elements, arose. They are not identical offenses as would make applicable the rule on double jeopardy. a. Similar elements of Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction: 1) offended party is a virgin 2) she must be over 12 but under 18. b. Different Elements: Consented Abduction 1) taking away was with her consent after solicitation from the offender 2) taking away was done with lewd designs. Qualified Seduction 1) committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship 2) offender has sexual intercourse with the woman Mendoza didnt pardon her. In cases od seduction , abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, pardon must be expressly given. Also, Mendoza filed it within the 10 year prescriptive period.

2)

3)

Chapter 5: Provisions Relative to the Preceding Chapters of Title 11 Title: PEOPLE V. NARDO Date: March 1, 2001 Per Curiam Parties: People (plaintiff-appellee; Alfredo Nardo (accused-appellant and father of the victim) Relevant Law : RPC, Art. 266 A-C (Rape) Anti-Rape Law of 1997 Facts: Lorielyn Nardo is the eldest daughter of accused appellant. o 14 years old during the time of the incident On February 24, 1996, around noon, Lorielyn was in their house located in Barangay 3, Camalig, Albay o She was together with her father Alfredo, two younger brothers, Leonel and Louie, and maternal grandfather, Vicente Remot. o At 1 :30 o'clock in the afternoon, after they had lunch, Vicente left for work. o Alfredo told his sons, Leonel and Louie, to go out. o Alfredo then ordered Lorielyn to get his cigarettes in his bedroom. When Lorielyn went inside the bedroom, her father followed her. o He embraced Lorielyn from behind and began mashing her breasts. o Lorielyn pleaded, "Papa, please stop it. Have mercy. " Her father ignored her. o He undressed her and pushed her to the bed.

Lorielyn started to cry , while Alfredo took off his clothes. o Then, he lay on top of her and had sexual intercourse with her. He kissed her from the neck down. She tried to free herself but Alfredo took hold of a knife from a nearby cabinet and pointed it at her right ear. o He threatened to kill their whole family if Lorielyn told anyone what he did. o When he was finished, Alfredo left the house. Their mother, Elizabeth Nardo, was not in their house since she was washing clothes about five houses away. o Elizabeth returned home at about 3:00 o'clock p.m. She saw Lorielyn crying while washing the dishes. She asked Lorielyn why she was crying, but her daughter said nothing. On March 19, 1996, Lorielyn was washing clothes when her father approached her and whispered, "We will play tonight near the river. " o Lorielyn understood this to mean that her father wanted to have sexual intercourse with her again. o She finished the laundry and left the house. o She took a passenger jeepney to Barangay Libod, Camalig, Albay and proceeded to the house of her aunt, Carol Navera. o She stayed there until her aunt arrived at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. o Carol told Lorielyn to go home, but she decided to spend the night at her aunt's house because she was afraid to undergo the ordeal from her father again. The next day, Lorielyn's brother, Leone, was sent by her father to fetch her, but she refused to go with him. o Her aunt asked her again why she did not want to go home. She merely said she had a problem. She slept at her aunt's house again that night. The following day, her mother came to fetch her. Lorielyn told her mother she did not want to go home. o She said, "Mama, do you want me to become pregnant in that house? " Her mother asked, "Who will impregnate you there? " Lorielyn replied, "Your husband. " Her mother retorted that Alfredo could not do that to her, then left. Lorielyn stayed at her aunt's house until March 22, 1996. o On that date, Carol again asked Lorielyn what her problem was. Finally, she told her aunt that her father raped her. o Immediately, Carol went to report the matter to the police. She later returned home with two policemen, and together they brought Lorielyn to the Camalig Police Station. o The rape was entered in the police blotter and Lorielyn was examined. o A complaint was filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Camalig-Albay. The findings of the Lorielyns pelvic examination were: whitish to yellowish discharge; irritation lateral aspect of the posterior vulva at 3 o ' clock; and healed laceration hymenal in origin posterior aspect of the fourchet. o

AT THE TRIAL The prosecution presented the following witnesses: 1. Carolina Navera (Loreilyns aunt who corroborated Loreilyns statement that the latter went to her house) 2. Ma. Francia Aguilar (the DSWD social welfare officer who testified that, in the evening of March 22, 1996, she responded to a report of a rape incident and she met Lorielyn) 3. SPO3 Jose Nuylan ( a member of the Camalig police force, who testified that he investigated the rape incident and took the statement of Lorielyn Nardo) 4. Elizabeth Nardo(victims mother)

testified that she and Alfredo are not married, but they have been living together Lorielyn is the eldest of her children with Alfredo. The defense presented the following witnesses: 1. Lawyer Santer G. Gonzales (Alfredos employer) He testified that accused-appellant worked as a helper at his farm in Quirangay, Camalig, Albay. On February 24, 1996, accused-appellant arrived at his farm before 8:00 o'clock in the morning. He was followed by his father-in-law, Vicente Remot, who lived with him in the same house. It started to rain hard, so they decided not to work that day. Vicente Remot went home at around 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock in the morning. Accused-appellant stayed behind. After a while, a neighbor of Atty. Gonzales arrived and they started to drink. They were joined later by another friend of Atty. Gonzales. The rain subsided at around 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, so they stopped drinking. At 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, accused-appellant left. The farm is located around 400 to 500 meters away from Barangay 3, where accused-appellant and the victim reside, and can be reached in 15 minutes. Atty. Gonzales described Lorielyn as one capable of telling a lie. He narrated that once, she went to his farm to collect the amount of P50.00 as daily wage of her grandfather, Vicente Remot, but she gave only P35.00 to her mother. 2. Vicente Remot (Alfredos father in law; Lorielyns maternal grandfather) He corroborated Atty. Gonzales' testimony that he was unable to work because of the rain, so he went home instead, leaving accused-appellant in the farm. At 1 :00 o ' clock in the afternoon of that day, he was at home watching television with Elizabeth and his grandchildren, including Lorielyn. He refuted Lorielyn's claim that he left after lunch to work, saying that he stayed in the house the whole afternoon since it was raining. 3. Elizabeth Nardo She testified that on February 24, 1996, she was at home watching television with her father and all seven children. She claimed that Lorielyn filed the complaint for rape against her father because he was very strict with her. o She learned from Lorielyn's best friend that she had a problem with her boyfriend, a certain Erwin Loreno. o She recounted two incidents in which she caught Lorielyn lying. One was when Lorielyn was asking permission to attend a holy retreat and when she told o Mrs. Bonifacia "Paz" Nieva that her grandfather was sick so she can borrow money. 4. Mrs. Bonifacia Nieva (mother of Loreilyns classmate) Lorielyn visited her saying that she was sent by Elizabeth to borrow money because her grandfather was sick. She gave her P200.00, only to find out that Loreilyns father was not sick. By way of rebuttal evidence, the prosecution presented Loreilyn. She refuted Atty. Gonzales' statement that she did not turn over the full the salary of her grandfather in the amount of P50.00. She denied that she lied to her mother about a holy retreat held by her school. Regaring the P200.00 she borrowed from Mrs. Nieva, she asserted that it was her father who ordered her to do that, and that she gave the whole sum of P200.00 to him. On clarificatory questioning by the presiding judge, Lorielyn maintained that her grandfather, Vicente Remot,

indeed came home in the morning of February 24, 1996, but he left again to go to Atty. Gonzales' farm after lunch. On the afternoon of February 24, her mother was at the public faucet located far away from their house washing clothes. The judge wondered aloud why she was doing the laundry in the afternoon when this is usually done in the morning. Lorielyn replied that her mother had started doing the laundry in the morning but that she was not able to finish it. She denied having any male friends, saying all her friends are girls. When asked once more by the judge, Lorielyn reiterated that her father had sexual intercourse with her. Alfredo Nardo was presented as the last witness. He denied that he raped his daughter, saying that he was at the farm of Atty. Gonzales on February 24, 1996. He scolded Lorielyn when he learned from her sister and brother that she was always going around with a boy. Lorielyn got mad at him because he did not permit her to leave the house whenever she wanted to. Trial Court found Alfredo Nardo guilty of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty death with the recommendation that it be commuted to reclusion perpetua (for humantiatrian reasons). The defense counsel (Teresita de Guzman) alleges that, during the pendency of the case, she received four letters from Loreilyn to the effect that she is recanting her allegations against her father. Issue/s and Ruling: 1. WON the letters received by Atty. De Guzman should be given weight? NO. The said letters were not subscribed and sworn to by Lorielyn. o A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. o Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration especially if made after the conviction of the accused. o any recantation or affidavit of desistance, by itself, even when construed as a pardon in the socalled "private crimes," is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been instituted. The pardon to justify the dismissal of the complaint should be made prior to the institution of the criminal action. o the crime committed was still considered as a private crime since it was committed in 1996, prior to the enactment of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 which reclassified rape as a crime against persons. Even if it were sworn, Lorielyn's recantation could hardly suffice to overturn the finding of guilt by the trial court which was based on her own clear and convincing testimony, given during a full-blown trial. o It would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a court of justice simply because the witness who gave it later on changed his/her mind for one reason or another. Such a rule would make a solemn trial a mockery, and place the proceedings at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. 2. WON the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the victim and disregarded the evidence for the defense? NO. The sole testimony of Lorielyn was sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant. It is settled that a person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim if

the trial court finds said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the course of things. A daughter, especially one in her minority, would not accuse her own father of such an unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved. o Lorielyn withstood all the rigors of the case, starting from the initial police interrogation, the medical examination, the formal charge, the public trial, to the cross-examination. o The fact that she maintained her story during her testimony-in-chief all the way up to her rebuttal testimony only serves to substantiate the veracity of her claim. Well settled is the rule that no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished. o No person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice.

Argument of the Defense: Occasions were cited wherein Lorielyn supposedly lied in order to obtain money or her parents' permission to leave the house. SC Held: While lying may constitute a habit, we believe that the falsehoods committed by Lorielyn, assuming them for the moment to be true, are petty and inconsequential. They are not as serious as charging one's own father of the sordid crime of rape. Argument of the Defense: Defense of Alibi. That he was in the farm of Atty. Gonzales when the alleged incident happened. SC Held: In order to overcome the evidence of the prosecution with the defense of alibi, the defense must establish not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. The farm was only 400 to 500 meters, or 15 minutes, away from the scene of the crime. 3. WON the death penalty was properly imposed by the trial court? YES. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides: The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the two special qualifying circumstances, namely the victim's minority and the relationship between the victim and the culprit, increases the penalty of rape to one (1) degree, thus resulting in the imposition of the death penalty. These circumstances were properly pleaded in the indictment and duly proved during the trial. o Elizabeth Nardo testified that accused-appellant is Lorielyn's father, and that Lorielyn was born on September 11, 1981. She also presented Loreilyns baptismal certificate which sufficiently proved these facts. *The court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages which is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. However, it added the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. AQUINO V ACOSTA April 2, 2002 J. Sandoval-Gutierrez

Parties: Atty. Susan M. Aquino, complainant Hon. Ernesto D. Acosta, Presiding Judge, Court of Tax Appeals, respondent Relevant Law: RA No. 7877 Section 3(a) Facts: This present administrative case is filed by Atty. Susan M. Aquino who is the Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Appeals charging Judge Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the CTA with sexual harassment under RA 7877 and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of Professional Responsibility She reports several incidents where the judge allegedly sexually harassed her: o Nov. 21, 2000: She reported for work after her vacation in the US and brought gifts for the three judges of the CTA, including respondent. In the afternoon, he entered her room, greeted her and then pulled her towards him and kissed her on the cheek o Dec. 28, 2000: Respondent went to her office, greeted her Merry Christmas, and then embraced and kissed her. She was able to free herself by slightly pushing him away o Jan. 2001: Respondent tried to kiss complainant in his chambers but she was able to evade his attempt. She then resolved not to enter his chambers alone o Weeks later, when Senate approved the bill expanding CTAs jurisdiction and complainant and her companions were congratulating and kissing each other, respondent suddenly placed his arm around her shoulders and kissed her o In the morning of Feb. 14, 2001, respondent called complainant and requested her to go to his office. She then asked Ruby Lanuza, a clerk in the Records Section to accompany her but when they reached his chambers, respondent had left o The last incident happened the next day at around 8 am when again, respondent requested her to see him in his office so she then asked Ruby to accompany her. While complainant was inside respondents office, Ruby stayed outside by the secretarys desk pretending to look for something with only a transparent glass separating her from the office. Judge seems to be at a loss for words and kept glancing at Ruby, finally approaching her and asked what she was looking for. Ruby said she found it and left. Respondent then approached complainant saying me gusto akong gawin sa iyo kahapon pa and then tried to grab her. She tried to protect herself but respondent held her arms tightly and pulled her towards him, kissing her. She pushed him away then slumped in a chair trembling while respondent sat down and covered his face with his hands. o After the incident, respondent went to her office and tossed a note stating sorry, it wont happen again Respondent judge denied the allegations that he sexually harassed her six times and claimed that he always treated her with respect, being the head of the CTA Legal Staff He explained his side of the story and regarding the last incident, respondent narrated his version as follows: o Complainant arrived in his office with Lanuza and he proceeded to discuss a bill with complainant o He then went to the restroom and when he got back, Lanuza had already left o He then remarked that he forgot to greet her on Valentines Day and have her a casual buss on the cheek but she suddenly stood up and raised her arms ro cover her face, causing her to lose her balance so he held her arms to prevent her from falling

Issue: Held:

Her rejection came as a surprise to him and made him feel embarrassed so she wrote her an apology note, stunned at the thought that she might misinterpret his gesture The case was referred to Justice Josefina Salonga of the Court of Appeals who found for the petitioner, dismissing said case WON Judge Acosta is guilty of sexual harassment o

Court agrees with the findings of the CA We have reviewed carefully the records of this case and found no convincing evidence to sustain complainants charges What we perceive to have been committed by respondent judge are casual gestures of friendship and camaraderie and evidently, she misunderstood his actuations and construed them as workrelated sexual harassment under RA 7877 A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877. Section 3 (a) thereof provides, to wit: 'Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training - related Sexual Harassment Defined. Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act. a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when: 1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions or privileges; or the refusal to grant sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in anyway would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employees; 2) The above acts would impair the employee's right or privileges under existing labor laws; or 3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.' "Clearly, under the foregoing provisions, the elements of sexual harassment are as follows: 1) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another; 2) The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working environment; 3) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, or any other person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy makes a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor. Indeed, from the records on hand, there is no showing that respondent judge demanded, requested or required any sexual favor from complainant in exchange for favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges specified in preceding Section Nor did he, by his actuations, violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility HOWEVER, he is admonished not to commit similar acts that may be construed as tainted with impropriety Respondent judge is hereby EXONERATED PHILIPPINE AEOLUS AUTOMOTIVE UNITED CORPORATION VS NLRC April 28, 2000 Bellosillo, J.

Petitioner: Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation [PAAUC] and/or Francis Chua Respondent: Natl Labor Relations Commission and Rosalinda Cortez FACTS: Cortez got fired from PAAUC on account of: 1. Committing acts constituting gross disrespect to her superior, William Chua [Aug. 2, 1994] [she threw a stapler at him and uttered abusive language] 2. Losing money [P1488] entrusted by the Plant Manager to her to be sent to CLMC for Mr. Fang [Aug. 23, 1994] 3. Causing someone else to punch-in her tie card to show that she was at work at 8:02am when in fact she arrived at 12:35pm [Sept. 6, 1994] 4. Failing to process the ATM applications of her 9 coemployees [who gave her P900 to do it] with Allied Banking Corp. [July 28, 1994] She was given several memos telling her to explain her behavior, which she refused to entertain, so they placed her under preventive suspension while her case was pending investigation. But they eventually fired her. After receiving the memorandum telling her she was fired, she filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of annual service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and damages against PAAUC and its president, Francis Chua. Labor Arbiter: Termination was valid and legal. She appealed to NLRC. NLRC: PAAUC is guilty of illegal dismissal. Told them to reinstate her to her former position with back wages. PAAUC brought the case to SC Her defenses: 1. William Chuas gots da hots for me since I came here! Gave me special treatment and asked me out on dates but of course I refused! The special treatment and sexual advances [touching my hands, putting his arms around my shoulders, running his fingers on my arms] continued for 4 years, but I aint easy, so I never reciprocated, and then shit just got real . He made me understand that if I wouldnt give in to his sexual advances, hed fire me. And then, he started harassing poor little me. I found out that the stuff I had on my table in the office was moved to another one without a phone or intercom. Thats why we had an argument when I confronted him. 2. I never lost the money. I gave it to the company personnel in-charge for proper transmittal. I even have a receipt [duly signed] to prove it! 3. I only asked someone else to do it coz I was doing an errand for Richard Tan [one of the companys officers], AND I gots permission from William Chua to do it, too! I did it in GOOD FAITH, because I was only accommodating the request of a company executive with permission from my boss. Also, the other employees always do it, and nobody ever got reprimanded. 4. I dont know anything quests for ATM cards! Fer Christs sake, Im a company nurse! I dont process ATM cards for co-employees. [Disclaimer: it wasnt really stated this way, but you already know that. Haha!] ISSUE: 1) WON NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in holding as illegal the dismissal of Cortez 2) WON shes entitled to damages, in the event that the illegality of her dismissal is sustained. RATIO: #1 DISMISSAL To be a just cause for dismissal, misconduct or improper behavior: o Must be serious o Must relate to the performance of the employees duties o Must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer

Her first offense, if seen through a laymans perspective, would be a serious misconduct. But, it must be seen in relation to her performance in her duties, to show that shes unfit to continue working in the company. The acts complained of under the circumstances they were done, didnt in any way pertain to her duties as a nurse. Her employment ID discloses the nature of her employment as a nurse, and no other. Even the memo she got informing her that she was being preventively suspended pending investigation of her case was addressed to her as a nurse. Re: Telling someone else to punch-in for her o It was a violation of the rules, but it doesnt constitute SERIOUS misconduct. o It was done IN GOOD FAITH, considering that she was asked by an officer to do something outside the office, for the benefit of the company. o It was her first time to do it in her 5-yr stay in the company. o The company didnt lose anything because of it, because the offense was immediately known and corrected. Re: Failure to process ATM cards o The money was deposited in their respective accounts, but it was merely delayed. o Sol Gen: delay/failure to open ATM accounts for nine employees isnt sufficient by itself to charge her with gross and habitual neglect of duties. Petitioner failed to show that it was one of her primary duties Petitioner failed to show that she intentionally, knowingly, and purposely delayed the opening of the ATM accounts. Petitioner failed to show that the delay was caused by neglect or willful act. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces thoughtless disregard of consequences w/o exerting any effort to avoid them. The negligence, to warrant removal from service, shouldnt be merely GROSS, but also HABITUAL. The burden to prove WILLFULL BREACH is on the company. It must be founded on facts established by the employer, who must clearly and convincingly prove by SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE the facts and incidents upon which loss of confidence in the employee may fairly be laid to rest. None of these requirements are present in this case. #2 DAMAGES NLRC says that shes not entitled to moral and exemplary damages, since it took her so long [4 years] to react to the alleged advancements of her boss. The act of throwing the stapler and shouting abusive words at him shouldve been her immediate reaction for them to believe and support her position. After all, she wouldve only been protecting her womanhood, her person, and her rights. SC: the gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the employees sexuality, but the ABUSE OF POWER by the employer. As long as the claim is substantiated, there is no time period within which one is expected to complain through the proper channels. The time to do so may vary depending on the needs, the circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee. Not many women, especially in this country, re made of the stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a public, even corporate, scandal. If she wasnt fired, we could only speculate how much longer she would keep her silence. Since he [William Chua] had no place in her heart. She had no place in his office. So, he provoked her, harassed her, and finally dislodged her, and for finally wenting her pent-up anger for years, he found the perfect reason to terminate her. It suffices to prove that she has suffered anxiety, sleepless nights, besmirched reputation and social humiliation by reason of the acts complained of. Petitioners should pay her moral and exemplary

damages, also because of the oppressive manner with which they effected her dismissal from the service, and to serve as a forewarning to all the other lecherous officers and employers who take undue advantage of their ascendancy over employees. FLORALDE VS. CA (2000) Pardo, J. Parties: Petitioners (victims): Yolanda Floralde, Nida Velasco, Normelita Alhambra Respondent: Paulino Resma, OFFICER IN CHARGE OF AGRICULTURAL TRAINING INSTITUTE Relevant Law: Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 Important Portion of Act that has a relation to the case: Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-Related Sexual Harassment Defined. Work sexual commitment is committed by an employer, who having authority over another in work demands or requests any sexual favor from the other. A) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when: 1) sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring, re-employment, granting of favorable compensation, privileges, or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting and segregating the employee in a way that would discriminate or deprive employment opportunities, etc. 2) above acts would impair the employees rights or privileges under existing labor laws 3) above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee FACTS: Civil Service Commission (CSC) conducted a formal investigation on Resma (Officer in charge of ATI) for grave misconduct in office (sexual harassment). They conducted a formal hearing where the prosecution presented three witness who gave positive testimonies The three petitioners claimed that Resma, as their superior and who they were reporting to, sexually harassed them. o In their testimonies, they gave the specific dates during when the sexual harassment actually happened and subjected to extensive cross-examination o Testimonies: Yolanda Dinakma ang puwit ko ng papisilpisil Nida Sexual Advances in 1990 bigla po akong hinalikan sa bibig. Binantaan po niya ako na kapag nagsumbong ako ay hindi niya irerenew ang aking appointment dahil casual lang po ako Normelita Sexual Advances in 1990 dinadakma ang puwit ko at sinasabing gusting-gusto niya ang malalaking puwit o Defense of the Defense: Represented an alibi impossible for him to be at the office on the days that the sexual harassment occurred Complaints of the women against him were actually instigated by a certain Atty. Ola, who was his rival for promotion and wanted him out of contention for the promotion. CSC made a judgment and dismissed Resma from service. CA reversed CSC decision. Hence, this petition. SC held: Reversed CA decision and Affirmed CSC decision. Resma dismissed from service. o By the preponderance of evidence presented by the prosecution, we believe that the CSCs decision was correct. o Sexual harassment in the workplace is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire; it is about power being exercised by a superior officer over his women subordinates. The power emanates from the fact that the superior can remove the subordinate from his workplace if the latter would refuse his amorous advances.

In determining where the preponderance or the superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts, the probability or improbability of their testimony, etc. By preponderance of evidence, is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.