G.R. No.

184702
October 2, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. CHRISTOPHER TALITA
Murder
FACTS: At about 2:00 p.m. on August 7, 1998, Marty Sarte parked his car before his house on 1st Street,
Meliton Ave., Barangay San Antonio, Paraaque, Metro Manila. As his wife, Sunshine Sarte, was about to board
the car, she saw appellant Talita walking from behind the car toward its windows. Marty was then at the drivers
seat while her aunt, Marilou Tolentino, occupied the backseat. Sunshines grandmother, Maxima Alejandro,
stood in front of the house, bidding goodbye to those who were about to leave.
Suddenly, appellant Talita turned around, pulled out a caliber .38 revolver, fired at least six shots through the
window at those in the car, and left. Once the firing ceased, Sunshine saw Marty and Marilou wounded and
motionless. She moved toward the drivers side of the car. But Talita returned, this time astride the motorcycle
that someone wearing a helmet drove for him. He fired his gun at her but hit the cars hood instead. The
motorcycle riders then fled. Marilou died but Marty received first aid treatment. Enriqueta De Ocampo, a traffic
enforcer directing traffic along Sucat Intersection, noticed two men riding a motorcycle. She was unable to see
the face of the driver who wore a helmet but she later identified his passenger as appellant Talita. The police
arrested Talita and Cinto. Marty, Sunshine and Maxima later identified Talita in a police line-up. For their part,
appellant Talita and Cinto denied having committed the crimes of which they were charged.
Talita and Cinto guilty of murder, qualified by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation, frustrated murder, and for attempted murder.
ISSUE: Whether appellants are guilty?
RULING: Sunshine and Maximas identification of appellant Talita as the assailant is corroborated by the
testimonies of Marty, Sunshines wounded husband, and Enriqueta De Ocampo, the traffic enforcer, who also
identified him. For this reason, the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court from such testimonies are
usually entitled to much weight.What is more, the trial court found that soon after the police arrested Talita and
his co-accused, both Sunshine and Maxima identified them at the police line-up. No doubt, their recollections of
what happened were then still fresh in their minds. The possibility of their committing a mistake is somewhat
remote.
The absence of proof that appellant Talita had a motive to commit the crime is of course not indispensable to
conviction since the witnesses positively identified him and described with definiteness his role in the crime.
Likewise, the fact that Talita did not go into hiding cannot be considered proof of innocence. While it has been
held that flight is an indication of guilt, non-flight does not necessarily mean non-guilt or innocence. Evidence
of flight is usually taken into account merely to strengthen a finding of guilt. Non-flight cannot be singularly
considered as evidence of innocence.
Talita mainly relied on denial which, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense because it can easily be fabricated.
HOWEVER, Cinto is acquitted for failure to prove his identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant Christopher Talita is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder,of
Frustrated Murder, and of Attempted Murder.

G.R. No. 185012

March 5, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. VICTOR VILLARINO y MABUTE
Rape with Homicide
FACTS: On April 28, 1995, "BBB", together with her 10-year old daughter "AAA" and her younger son "CCC"
went to the house of their relative in Barangay "D" to attend the fiesta to be held the next day. While personally
serving food and drinks to appellant, SP04 Genoguin noticed that the latter was wearing a bracelet and a
necklace with pendant. One Rodrigo also noticed appellant wearing a bracelet and a necklace with pendant and
wearing a white sleeveless t-shirt (sando).
While at the house of "BBBs" aunt, "BBB" also noticed that he was dressed in a white sando and that he wore
jewelry consisting of a bracelet and a necklace with pendant. He was later seen wearing the same sando and
jewelry while drinking at the basketball court in Barangay "D". "BBB" told "AAA" to go home to Barangay
"D1" to get a t-shirt for her brother. "AAA" obeyed. However, she no longer returned. While "BBB" was
anxiously waiting for "AAA" in the house of her aunt in Barangay "D", she received information that a dead
child had been found in Barangay "D1". She proceeded to the area where she identified the childs body as that
of her daughter, "AAA"
"AAAs" lifeless body lay face up with her buttocks on top of a small rock. Her body was slanted downward
with her legs spread apart and dangling on the sides of the small boulder. She was no longer wearing short pants
and panty, and blood oozed from her vagina. Wrapped around her right hand, which was positioned near her
right ear, was a white sando." A bracelet and a pendant were also recovered from the crime scene. On the same
day, the appellant was found near the seashore of Barangay "D1". He was drunk and violent. He resisted arrest
and had to be bodily carried to the motorboat that would take him to the municipal building in Almagro, Samar.
The arresting team made the appellant take off his clothes since they were wet. When he complied, his briefs
revealed bloodstains.
The police brought appellant to Calbayog City for medical examination since he had scratches and abrasions on
his body. While waiting for a boat ride the appellant voluntarily admitted to SPO4 Genoguin that he committed
the crime charged. He also told SPO4 Genoguin that he could keep the pendant and bracelet if he would retrieve
the t-shirt and throw it into the sea. He further offered to give SPO4 Genoguin P20,000.00 if he would throw the
sando into the sea. However, the police officer ignored the offer and instead reported the matter to the Chief of
Police. Later, the appellants mother, Felicidad Mabute y Legaspi, asked SPO4 Genoguin not to testify against
her son.
ISSUE: Is the confession of the accused to the officer admissible?
RULING: Yes. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1)
the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of
force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force,
threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. When the victim is a minor, however, it is sufficient that
the evidence proves that the appellant had sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with the victim.
When appellant confessed to the crime, he was alone with SPO4 Genoguin, and no force or intimidation was
employed against him. The confession was spontaneously made and not elicited through questioning. The trial
court did not, therefore, err in holding that compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial
interrogation is not applicable in the instant case.
At any rate, even without his confession, appellant could still be convicted of the complex crime of rape with
homicide through circumstantial evidence which were credible and sufficient, and led to the inescapable
conclusion that the appellant committed the complex crime of rape with homicide. When considered together,
the circumstances point to the appellant as the culprit. First. Prior to the incident, three witnesses saw the
appellant wearing the white sleeveless t-shirt, a necklace with pendant and a bracelet Second. The pendant and
bracelet were later recovered a few meters away from the lifeless body of "AAA". The white sando was also
found clasped in the right hand of the victim. Third. The appellant could no longer produce the sando and pieces
of jewelry after his arrest. Fourth. The physical examination on the appellant revealed 10 healed abrasions and
two linear abrasions or scratches on his breast, knees and ears which could have been caused by the fingernails
of the victim. Fifth. The victim had blood oozing from her vaginal orifice, while the appellant had human bloodstains on his briefs. Sixth. The appellant attempted to bribe SPO4 Genoguin and the policemen who were
escorting him to Calbayog City, by offering them P20,000.00 in exchange for the disposal of his white
sleeveless t-shirt found in the crime scene. Seventh. The appellants mother requested SPO4 Genoguin not to
testify against her son.

G.R. No. 173510 March 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ERPASCUAL DIEGA y PAJARES
Rape with Homicide
FACTS: The victim, "AAA", was a 13-year old girl residing with her family in Rodriguez, Rizal. She was a 1st
year high school student and would usually leave her home at 4:00 oclock in the morning and walk for about a
kilometer to a terminal where she could take a ride to school. The path towards the terminal passes a farm
within a 50-hectare plantation located at Upper Ciudad Real, Araneta, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, where the
appellant was employed as a stay-in security guard. "AAA" uses the same route on her way home.
On March 17, 1995, "AAA" failed to return home at the usual time. Her parents frantically searched for her, but
it was only on the next day, when the dead body of "AAA" was discovered inside the plantation.
"AAAs" corpse was covered with leaves. A wood vine was tied around her neck and her head bore several
wounds. Her school uniform was crumpled and her panty was missing. The medico-legal examination indicated
that she died of "asphyxia by strangulation, hemorrhages as a result of traumatic injuries, head and body". There
were deep, fresh lacerations at 3:00 and 9:00 oclock positions and a shallow fresh laceration at 7:00 oclock
position in her hymen which "are compatible with recent loss of virginity."
The police investigation revealed that Juanito Manalo III (Juanito) was tending to the grazing carabaos inside
the plantation when he saw the appellant stooping down. The appellant stood up clad only in his shorts and
waved his pistol to call Juanito. As Juanito approached, he saw that the appellant had a menacing look and
noticed "AAA" lying unconscious on the ground. The appellant then pointed his pistol to Juanito and ordered
him to touch the body of "AAA" and to tie a vine around her neck. Out of fear, Juanito obeyed and discovered
that "AAA" no longer had undergarments. He was permitted to leave, but only after the appellant threatened to
kill him and his family if he would reveal to anyone what he witnessed. As Juanito fled from the scene, he was
seen by Martin Gailan (Martin) and Arnel Alminana (Arnel) who were also privy to the death threats made by
the appellant. The police investigation also revealed that prior to the commission of the crime, "AAA" and her
aunt used to pass by the plantation and every time the appellant would see them, especially when he was drunk,
he would whistle at "AAA" and even touch her upper arm. At one time, the appellant uttered to "AAAs" aunt,
"Misis, ingatan mo ang iyong pamangkin." Pending trial, appellant absconded and remained at-large until his
arrest in his hometown in Baybay Gamay in Northern Samar
ISSUE: Can the guilt be proven by circumstantial evidence?
RULING: Yes. In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the
appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force,
threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or
intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. Both rape and homicide must be established beyond reasonable
doubt.
Considering that there were no witnesses to the commission of the crime charged herein, the weight of the
prosecutions evidence must then be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule that an accused can be
convicted even in the absence of an eyewitness, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the
main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. It is sufficient to sustain conviction if:
(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were derived have been
established; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Appellant Erpascual Diega y Pajares is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of rape
with homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Appellant
is ordered to pay the heirs of "AAA" civil indemnity.

G.R. No. 182460

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA
Arson and Frustrated Homicide
FACTS: Eulogio Quilates (Eulogio) is the owner of a two-storey house in Paringao, Bauang, La Union.
Among the occupants of his house were his sister Felicidad Quilates (Felicidad); another sister Alicia Manlupig
(Alicia); and nephew Herminio Manlupig (Herminio). Appellant, who is the adopted son of Felicidad, occupied
one room in the house. At around 3:30 p.m. of 24 March 2004, appellant was having a drinking spree with his
cousin Herminio and brothers-in-law Joey Viduya and Ricky Viduya (Ricky) in front of their house. Appellant
and Herminio were arguing over the matter of caring for Felicidad while the latter was confined in the hospital.
Ricky tried to mediate between the two. Appellant was then seen going inside the house to get a bolo. When he
emerged from the house ten (10) minutes later, he ran after Herminio but the latter managed to escape
unscathed. Appellant again went back to the house.
Meanwhile, after pacifying appellant and Herminio, Ricky resumed drinking. A few minutes later, he
saw smoke coming from the room of appellant. As Ricky was about to enter the house, he met appellant at the
door. Appellant apparently tried to stab Ricky but was unsuccessful. Ricky witnessed appellant stab Felicidad
and Alicia. Herminio, who had since come back to the drinking table, also saw the smoke. He peeped through
the small window of the house and witnessed appellant burning some clothes and boxes in the sala. Herminio
immediately went inside the house to save his personal belongings. Upon emerging from the house, Herminio
saw his mother, Alicia, bloodied. Alicia testifies that she was sitting on a chair near the toilet when she saw
smoke coming out of appellants room. Before she could react, appellant came charging at her and stabbed her.
She sustained wounds on her upper thigh, arms, below her breast and on her ear. Alicia was still able to ask for
help, and her daughter-in-law brought her to the hospital.
Appellant admitted to the crime of frustrated homicide, hence the review is limited to the crime of
arson.
ISSUE: Is circumstamtial evidence enough to prove the guilt of appellant?
RULING: Yes. In the prosecution for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence
establishes: (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the defendant
as the one responsible for the crime. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the
fire and of it having been intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if
credible, is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.
In order to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be
such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal responsibility of the accused.
Indeed, appellant was last seen inside the house before the fire started. Eulogio and Ricky saw smoke
emanating from the room of appellant. Herminio testified that he saw appellant burning clothes in his room.
Appellant then went on a stabbing rampage while the house was on fire. While nobody directly saw appellant
burn the house, these circumstances would yield to a logical conclusion that the fire that gutted eight (8) houses
was authored by appellant.
A close examination of the records, as well as description of the crime as stated in the information,
reveals that the crime committed is in fact simple arson because the burned properties are residential houses.

G.R. No. 187049

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs LITO MACAPANAS y ECIJA
Rape
FACTS: At around 7:30 a.m. on December 7, 1999, AAA, a student of Eastern Samar State Agricultural
College, was walking on the feeder road of Barangay XXX, Salcedo, Eastern Samar going to the waiting shed
where she was to take a ride to school. She was 50 to 60 meters away from the waiting shed when the
appellant, wearing a makeshift ski mask and armed with a bladed weapon locally known as sundang, grabbed
her hair. Appellant poked the sundang on her side and pulled her towards a grassy area. She tried to free
herself and pleaded for mercy, but to no avail.
When they reached a nearby stream, appellant shoved AAA towards an uninhabited house with the knife.
Inside, appellant told her to undress, but AAA did not obey. She asked appellant to remove his mask so she could
identify him. Appellant acceded and removed his mask. Then, he ordered her anew to remove her dress. When
she refused, appellant grabbed her skirt and forcibly removed the buttons to open her skirt. Appellant then
pushed her to the floor where he removed her panty. He mounted her and succeeded in having intercourse with
her. After satisfying his lust, appellant allowed AAA to put on her dress with a warning that he would kill her if
she tells anyone about what happened.
When AAA saw plenty of people on the road, she shouted for help. Appellant then stabbed her at the
back and fled. AAA was brought to the Southern Samar General Hospital where she was confined for nine (9)
days.
On the third day of AAAs confinement, they suspected that something more had happened to AAA, but
she merely cried and did not answer their questions. On her sixth day of confinement, AAA, accompanied by
her mother, admitted she was also raped.
ISSUE: Whether appellants guilt for the crime of rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING: Yes. The fact that AAA did not immediately reveal that she was raped by appellant does not
necessarily impair AAAs credibility. How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as
it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Not all rape victims can be expected to act
conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are
expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react
differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response
when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.
In this case, the delay in reporting the sexual assault was reasonable and explained. AAA adequately explained
that she did not immediately inform anyone of her ordeal because she was ashamed and afraid because
appellant had threatened to kill her. Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her.
Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
While appellant was not placed in a police line-up for identification by AAA, the absence of such police line-up
does not make AAAs identification of appellant as the one (1) who raped her, unreliable. There is no law or
police regulation requiring a police line-up for proper identification in every case. Even if there was no police
line-up, there could still be proper and reliable identification as long as such identification was not suggested or
instigated to the witness by the police. What is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that
the person charged was the malefactor.
For one (1) to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one (1) of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, must be alleged in the Information and
duly proved during the trial. In the case at bar, appellant used a sharp-pointed bolo locally known as sundang in
consummating the salacious act. This circumstance was alleged in the Information and duly proved during
trial. Being in the nature of a qualifying circumstance, use of a deadly weapon increases the penalties by
degrees, and cannot be treated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only the period of
the penalty. This so-called qualified form of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon carries a penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death. As such, the presence of generic aggravating and mitigating circumstances will
determine whether the lesser or higher penalty shall be imposed. When, as in this case, neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the minimum penalty, i.e., reclusion perpetua,
should be the penalty imposable pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, both trial and
appellate courts properly imposed on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Exemplary damages should likewise be awarded pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code since the
special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape.

G.R. No. 190616

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PASTOR LLANAS, JR. y BELCHES
Rape
FACTS: Appellant is legally married to BBB, AAAs mother, and that he is the father of AAA, his and BBBs
only child.
The first incident happened sometime in 1998 when AAA was only a 9-year old grade III schoolgirl. On
the fateful day of that year, appellant tricked AAA into going with him to a camalig to play. Once inside,
appellant laid her on the bamboo floor and removed her garments. In all her innocence, AAA asked why she is
being undressed only to be told by the appellant not to report anything, else he would kill her and BBB. After
taking off his clothes, appellant parted AAAs legs, went on top of her, inserted his sex organ to hers and made
the usual push-and-pull routine.
One day the following year, appellant again sexually abused AAA, now 10 years old. In the witness box,
AAA could not recall whether the incident happened in the morning or in the afternoon, but she distinctly
remembered that it occurred in 1999, being in Grade IV at that time and it was the year the family moved to
another house in the same barrio.
Then on August 4, 2005, at around 1:00 oclock in the afternoon, while BBB was out of the house,
appellant approached AAA, now 15 years old, to ask her to play. This remark frightened AAA, as this was the
same line used when she was abused in the past. AAA spurned the invitation to play, but the insistent appellant
told her that: para lang yan. Its just that. You are not going to be pregnant because Im withdrawing my
semen. There and then, appellant brought her to a room, stripped her of her shorts and panty and likewise
removed his garments. What happened next was a virtual repeat of what appellant did in 1998 and 1999 after he
asked AAA to play. Responding later to BBBs questioning why she was crying, AAA disclosed everything to
her mother. Thereafter, BBB, with AAA in tow, proceeded to the local police station to report about the
incidents, after which BBB repaired to the local National Bureau of Investigation office to have AAA physically
examined.
The records of the physical examination yielded: no extragenital physical injury x x x on the body of
[AAA] at the time of examination; old healed hymenal lacerations present; and hymenal orifice wide x x x as to
allow complete penetration by an average sized adult male organ in full erection without producing hymenal
injury.
ISSUE: Appellant seeks acquittal, predicating his plea principally on the issue of: (1) the credibility of the
prosecutions key witness; and (2) the sufficiency of the Peoples evidence.
RULING: Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy involving only two persons and not generally attempted
save in secluded places far from prying eyes. By the intrinsic nature of rape cases, the crime usually commences
solely upon the word of the offended girl herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility, as the
Peoples single witness of the actual occurrence. Foremost of these: an offended womans testimony hurdling
the exacting test of credibility would suffice to convict. In fine, the credibility of the victim is always the single
most important issue in prosecution for rape. Withal, in passing upon the credibility of the victim-witness, the
highest degree of respect must be afforded to the evaluation and findings of the trial court.
Appellants obvious thesis that a minor rape victim always results in vaginal injury rests on a lot of
oversimplification and, hence, must be eschewed. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily
result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient
in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accuseds penis suffices to constitute
the crime of rape. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of fresh
external signs or physical injuries on the complainants body does not necessarily negate the commission of
rape, hymenal laceration and like vaginal injuries not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. What is
more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victims testimony and not the findings of the
medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape;
the victims testimony alone, if credible, is, to repeat, sufficient to convict.
In rape cases, the concurrence, as here, of the victims minority (under 18) and her relationship with the
offender is a special qualifying circumstance for which the law prescribes the penalty of death under Art. 266-B
of the Revised Penal Code. The imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, instead of death, for each count
of qualified rape, on appellant who shall not be eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is in
order in light of R.A. 9346 or the the Anti-Death Penalty Law, which prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty.

G.R. No. 155850

February 19, 2008
EDGARDO POSTANES, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Slight Physical Injuries
FACTS: On April 9, 1996, at past three o'clock in the afternoon, Pasion and his co-employees, Gines Carmen,
Ali Plaza and Armand Juarbal, were walking on the 3 rd Floor of the Masagana City Mall when all of a sudden,
petitioner appeared and tapped him on the shoulder. When he turned around, petitioner punched him on the
face. Pasion fell on the floor, and petitioner kicked him and poked a gun at him. Immediately, Pasion ran toward
the LRT station. As a result of the attack, Pasion suffered physical injuries which prevented him from working
for ten days. He spent P2,000 for his medical expenses. Pasion's testimony was corroborated by Gines Carmen.
Petitioner was found guilty of slight physical injuries and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for twenty
days. Petitioner argues that the CA should have acquitted him because the medical certificate/records presented
by Mr. Pasion were not also identified by the physician who issued the same; that the findings of the trial court
were overrated, and the judge who penned the decision was not the one who personally heard the testimony of
petitioner and his three witnesses; that the CA should not have disregarded the testimony of petitioner's
witnesses who identified Mr. Pasion as the assailant and petitioner as the victim; that Mr. Pasion and his
witnesses are not credible because they were directly involved in the altercation, and their testimonies are
biased and self-serving; and that the CA gravely erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for lack of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE: Is the appeal meritorious?
RULING: No. We have constantly reiterated that conclusions and findings of the facts of the trial court as well
as the assessment of the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be
disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence on record.
The petition fails. Petitioner raises factual issues and credibility issues, which are not appropriate in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 45 wherein only questions purely of law may be raised.
Petitioner contends that there was an unequal treatment of medical certificates. The record, however, shows that
the certificate of Mr. Pasion from the Philippine General Hospital was authenticated by the records custodian
who testified, whereas that of petitioner was not authenticated at all.

G.R. No. 178061

January 31, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA
Rape/Acts of Lasciviousness
FACTS: In six informations, the prosecution charged Montinola with raping his minor daughter, AAA, on 29
October 1999, 19 December 1999, February 2000, March 2000, 4 November 2000, and January 2001 and with
acts of lasciviousness. AAA was born on 12 October 1987.
He claimed that AAA made up the accusations against him because he often beat her. Moreover, he claimed
that, if it were true that he raped her, (1) he would have been caught by people outside the house, if there were
any; and (2) she would have sustained injuries in her vagina because his penis has pellets embedded in it. AAA's
mother, two brothers, and sister corroborated Montinola's claim that he did not rape AAA.
On appeal, Montinola contended that the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to AAA's testimony
and finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. He claimed that AAA was not credible:
(1) her testimony was inconsistent, (2) her testimony was not in accord with human experience, (3) she failed to
immediately report the incidents to her relatives or to the proper authorities, (4) she admitted that there were
other people in the house when the alleged incidents took place yet she did not ask them for help, and (5) the
medical report did not prove that Montinola was the one who raped AAA.
ISSUE: Is the appeal tenable?
RULING: No. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The Court can correct errors
unassigned in the appeal.
The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's testimony is not credible because it contains an
inconsistency. [M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is made to recall minor details of an experience
so humiliating and so painful as rape. After all, the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some
inconsistencies in her testimony. Moreover, testimonies of child victims are given full faith and credit.In the
instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected especially because (1) AAA was a child witness, (2) she was
made to testify on painful and humiliating incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was
made to recount details and events that happened several years before she testified.
The Court believes AAA. This is a very futile attempt to discredit AAA's testimony. Allowing young children to
go outside the house while the rain is pouring is not unbelievable, especially when one is overcome by lust.
AAA's failure to report the incidents immediately was justifiable: (1) Montinola threatened her that he would
cut her throat, as well as the throats of her siblings, if she told anyone about the incidents; (2) her mother was at
work most of the time; (3) Montinola had moral and physical control over her, kept an eye on her, and
interrupted her whenever she attempted to report the incidents to her mother; (4) even if she told her mother, her
mother would not have believed her; (5) she was overwhelmed by fear and confusion; (6) telling people that one
has been raped by her own father is not easy to do; and (7) a 14-year-old child cannot be expected to know how
to go about reporting crimes to the proper authorities.
There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion. In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's
testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant's testimony is credible, it
may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction. AAA revealed that her own father raped her, allowed the
examination of her vagina, and willingly underwent a public trial where she divulged in detail her painful
experiences.
For the acts of lasciviousness, he should be punished under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. Section 5(b)
covers acts of lasciviousness while Section 10(a) covers other acts of abuse. Section 5(b) provides:
Under Section 5(b) has three elements: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse;
and (3) the child is below 18 years old.
All three elements are present in the instant case: (1) Montinola caressed AAA's right thigh, slipped his hand
under her shorts, and touched her vagina; (2) AAA indulged in lascivious conduct under Montinola's coercion;
and (3) AAA was below 18 years old.
Accordingly, the Court modifies the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 02-725. Section 5(b) of Republic
Act No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Since
there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its
maximum period - reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 187742

April 20, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. CRIZALDO PACHECO y VILLANUEVA
Rape
FACTS: AAA lived with her mother, BBB, and accused-appellant, BBBs live-in partner, in Malabon City. She
recalled that accused-appellant had raped her many times, the last of which happened on January 7, 2002 at
around 2 oclock in the morning. At that time, she was awakened from her sleep when accused-appellant was
removing her clothes. He then removed his clothes also and proceeded to mount her, inserting his penis into her
vagina and repeating a pumping movement. AAA felt pain in her vagina but could not cry out as accusedappellant threatened to maul and box her as he had previously done. After having carnal knowledge of AAA,
accused-appellant then went to sleep.
AAA eventually revealed accused-appellants lechery to one of her teachers, who accompanied her to Bantay
Bata ABS-CBN to ask for help. AAA then gave the police a statement of what had happened to her. P/SInsp.
Sabino testified in her capacity as Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Womens
Crime and Child Protection Center. Her ano-genital examination on AAA revealed that the child had deep
healed laceration at 6 oclock position.
On appeal, accused-appellant faulted the trial court for erroneously ruling against him even if (1) the rape could
not have been committed inside a room where AAAs mother and other siblings were also sleeping; (2) AAA
belatedly reported the rape; (3) the prosecution failed to establish with certainty that the hymenal laceration was
the direct result of his raping AAA; (4) AAA could have shouted or resisted if she was really raped; and (5)
AAA was motivated by ill feelings in accusing accused-appellant of rape.
ISSUE: Whether the CA gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged.
RULING: No. The arguments raised by the defense are overused and insubstantial. The Revised Penal Code
defines statutory rape as sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old. The two elements of statutory rape
are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age.
What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus,
force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is
the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.
In prosecuting rape cases, we reiterate from previous rulings that the eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled
with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges.
Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. Even the victims lack
of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or
consent. While AAA may not have exerted effort to free herself from her rapist, her actions can be explained by
the fear she already had of accused-appellant, who had beat her up on more than one occasion. Accusedappellants moral ascendancy over AAA, combined with memories of previous beatings, was more than enough
to intimidate AAA and rendered her helpless while she was being victimized.
The burden of going through a rape prosecution is grossly out of proportion to whatever revenge the young girl
would be able to exact. The Court has justifiably thus ruled, as the OSG noted, that a girl of tender age would
not allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what has happened.
As this Court has previously ruled, accused-appellant can still be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the
testimony of the victim. Hence, even if the medical findings are disregarded, in the end, the prosecution has
successfully proved the case of rape against accused-appellant on the basis of AAAs testimony.
The Revised Penal Code punishes statutory rape with reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 177138

January 26, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOEL GUILLERMO
Rape
FACTS: AAA testified that when she was 13 years of age, she and appellant, who is her first cousin, lived at
her grandparents house. She, with her siblings, slept in the sala illuminated by a kerosene lamp. On three
separate occasions, she woke up in the middle of the night to find the appellant wielding a knife and removing
her clothes and blanket. He subsequently forced her to engage in sexual intercourse with him. The appellant
threatened to kill her and the rest of her family if she reported the incident. Because she believed the threats of
the appellant, she kept quiet about the incidents until her elementary school teacher noticed that she was
pregnant. AAA revealed to her the dastardly acts of the appellant. She accompanied AAA to report the matter to
her father. They then proceeded to the police station to file the complaint. Dr. Ganciia testified that AAA
disclosed that appellant forced her to engage in sexual relations with him. She found that AAA had cervical
lacerations and confirmed that AAA was 5 to 6 months pregnant.
BBB testified that on September 28, 1998, when she was 12 years old, appellant sexually abused her. She lived
at her grandparents house. At night, she slept in the sala (which was illuminated by a kerosene lamp) beside her
siblings. One evening, she woke up as she felt someone licking her genitals. To her surprise, she discovered that
her clothes had been removed and appellant was on top of her. Appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with her. Throughout the entire ordeal, appellant was holding a knife and threatening to kill her and her family if
she told anyone about the incident. Dr. Ganciia testified that, after examining BBB she found four healed
lacerations in the childs cervix.
For its part, the defense argued that AAA was the sweetheart of appellant, and they had four sexual encounters
when she accepted his love proposal. He insisted on the validity of the affidavit of desistance by AAA.
With respect to BBBs accusation, appellant said that BBB was like a sister and he treated her accordingly. He
was not aware of any reason for her to accuse him of molesting her.
ISSUE: Is the defense of the accused tenable?
RULING: No. The "sweetheart theory" is an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently
places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. Appellant
presented no evidence to substantiate his claim.
Furthermore, the Court does not look with favor on affidavits of retraction. Recanted testimony is highly
questionable because it can be secured through monetary considerations. It is dangerous for courts to reject
testimonies solemnly given before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who made them change
their minds later on. Such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the
mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Here, the affidavit of retraction was precisely executed by AAA in exchange
for financial assistance and land (which she never received).
Appellants guilt of the crime of simple rape through force or intimidation has been established beyond
reasonable doubt. Inasmuch as the minority of both AAA and BBB was not proven and their relationship with
appellant was outside the scope of Article 14 of the RPC and Article 266-B of RA No 8353, these circumstances
cannot be considered as aggravating circumstances.
Nonetheless, the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since appellant used a deadly weapon to perpetrate
the offense. While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14
of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases
the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and proved during trial. Thus, even if the use of
a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify
the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages.
In this instance, while the Information did not state that appellant possessed a deadly weapon, the prosecution
sufficiently established that he threatened his victims with a knife in order to facilitate the commission of his
bestial acts and cow his victims into silence. Inasmuch as appellant may not be sentenced to death, the presence
of such circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages.