Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    People vs. Suyu

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Viloria
    1. Four men - Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet, and Rommel Macarubbo - were convicted of robbery with rape for their involvement in an incident on January 13, 1996 where Clarissa Angeles was robbed, sexually abused, and raped. 2. Clarissa testified that after she and her boyfriend were robbed, she was brought to a house and sexually abused by some of the men before Rodolfo Suyu raped her and Francis Cainglet also raped her while the other two men acted as guards. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding Clarissa's testimony to be credible and consistent. They found that delays in revealing a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Suyu

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Viloria
    30 views1 page
    1. Four men - Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet, and Rommel Macarubbo - were convicted of robbery with rape for their involvement in an incident on January 13, 1996 where Clarissa Angeles was robbed, sexually abused, and raped. 2. Clarissa testified that after she and her boyfriend were robbed, she was brought to a house and sexually abused by some of the men before Rodolfo Suyu raped her and Francis Cainglet also raped her while the other two men acted as guards. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding Clarissa's testimony to be credible and consistent. They found that delays in revealing a

    Original Title

    PEOPLE-VS.-SUYU.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Four men - Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet, and Rommel Macarubbo - were convicted of robbery with rape for their involvement in an incident on January 13, 1996 where Clarissa Angeles was robbed, sexually abused, and raped. 2. Clarissa testified that after she and her boyfriend were robbed, she was brought to a house and sexually abused by some of the men before Rodolfo Suyu raped her and Francis Cainglet also raped her while the other two men acted as guards. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding Clarissa's testimony to be credible and consistent. They found that delays in revealing a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views1 page

    People vs. Suyu

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Viloria
    1. Four men - Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet, and Rommel Macarubbo - were convicted of robbery with rape for their involvement in an incident on January 13, 1996 where Clarissa Angeles was robbed, sexually abused, and raped. 2. Clarissa testified that after she and her boyfriend were robbed, she was brought to a house and sexually abused by some of the men before Rodolfo Suyu raped her and Francis Cainglet also raped her while the other two men acted as guards. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding Clarissa's testimony to be credible and consistent. They found that delays in revealing a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y.

    Criminal Law II Atty David Yap


    Class Student No. 3 ROBBERY WITH RAPE DAY 6

    PEOPLE VS. SUYU G.R. No. 170191, August 16, 2006 499 SCRA 177

    CALLEJO, SR., J:

    FACTS:
    On 13 January 1996, around 7:15pm, Clarissa Angeles with her boyfriend William Ferrer were
    eating in a truck, when suddenly accused-appellant Rommel Macarubbo stood in front of the truck and
    declared “hold-up”, then Willy Suyu tried to open the lock of the truck. Both gave their money to the
    perpetrators. William was dragged out of the truck, grappled with Willy Suyu and was able to escape
    and seek for police assistance. They poked a knife at Clarissa and brought her near the house Rodolfo
    Suyu, in where she was sexually abused and kissed but she was able to stop them. When one shouted,
    they are coming, they brought her up the hill, again being sexually abused and finger inserted, declaring
    her to be a virgin. Rodolfo Suyu raped Clarissa, followed by Francis Cainglet, while the other two were
    watching as guards. The accused-appellants were arrested.
    The trial court convicted accused appellants Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet and
    Rommel Macarubbo guilty of robbery with rape.
    The Court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
    They contend that the court only relied on Clarissa’s testimony, although inconsistent since she
    did not at first declared that she was raped. All gave their different alibies.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not there is a crime of robbery with rape?

    HELD:
    Yes, there is a crime of robbery with rape. The trial court found Clarissa’s testimony to be
    consistent, believable, and credible, hence, is worthy of full faith and credit. The CA reviewed Clarissa’s
    testimony and found the same to be clear, sincere and could have only come from the mouth of a
    victim. During the grueling cross-examination conducted by three separate counsels of appellants, she
    remained steadfast in her testimony that she was raped. The credibility of complainant’s testimony is a
    primordial consideration in rape cases for the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the
    victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal
    course of things. When the testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unshaken by
    rigorous cross-examination and unflawed by any serious inconsistency or contradiction, the same must
    be given full faith and credit.
    While it is true that the victim initially did not reveal to the authorities the fact that she was
    raped after the robbery, this does not cast doubt on her testimony for it is not uncommon for a rape
    victim right after her ordeal to remain mum about what really transpired. Jurisprudence has established
    that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge, and the same
    is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. Besides, Clarissa sufficiently
    explained her initial reluctance on cross-examination.
    Understandably, Clarissa was reluctant to reveal, while at the police station, the fact that she
    was raped, considering that her boyfriend was present when she made her first statement before the
    police investigator. Further, one of the investigating officers was her townmate. Indeed, the fear of
    social humiliation prevented Clarissa from revealing, at the time, the details of her defilement. She was
    in a state of trauma, impelled by her natural instinct to put out of her mind such a painful and disturbing
    experience. Oftentimes, victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their
    shame to the world. In her desire for justice, she, nonetheless, later revealed the true events that
    happened on that fateful night of January 13, 1996.
    Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification.

    You might also like