Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    PP Vs CLARO

    Uploaded by

    Nadzlah Bandila
    The accused, Carlito Claro, was charged with rape. The prosecution claimed the accused forcibly raped AAA at a motel. However, the accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual. While AAA had injuries, the court found these did not preclude the possibility of consent. The court determined the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there was a probability the sexual act was consensual. The court overturned the guilty verdict, finding the evidence did not meet the high standard of proof required to convict the accused of rape.

    Copyright:

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

    PP Vs CLARO

    Uploaded by

    Nadzlah Bandila
    42 views2 pages
    The accused, Carlito Claro, was charged with rape. The prosecution claimed the accused forcibly raped AAA at a motel. However, the accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual. While AAA had injuries, the court found these did not preclude the possibility of consent. The court determined the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there was a probability the sexual act was consensual. The court overturned the guilty verdict, finding the evidence did not meet the high standard of proof required to convict the accused of rape.

    Original Title

    PP vs CLARO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused, Carlito Claro, was charged with rape. The prosecution claimed the accused forcibly raped AAA at a motel. However, the accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual. While AAA had injuries, the court found these did not preclude the possibility of consent. The court determined the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there was a probability the sexual act was consensual. The court overturned the guilty verdict, finding the evidence did not meet the high standard of proof required to convict the accused of rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views2 pages

    PP Vs CLARO

    Uploaded by

    Nadzlah Bandila
    The accused, Carlito Claro, was charged with rape. The prosecution claimed the accused forcibly raped AAA at a motel. However, the accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual. While AAA had injuries, the court found these did not preclude the possibility of consent. The court determined the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there was a probability the sexual act was consensual. The court overturned the guilty verdict, finding the evidence did not meet the high standard of proof required to convict the accused of rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    199894

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES … Plaintiff-Appellee Vs. CARLITO CLARO y MAHINAY … Accused-Appellant

    Facts: On March 14, 2006, AAA and Plaintiff- appellee had met at Augusto San Francisco Street,
    Sta. Ana Manila, and had proceeded on board a passenger jeepney to the Jollibee restaurant on Rizal
    Avenue; that at the Jollibee restaurant. They later on went to a nearby house, later identified as the
    Aroma Motel. AAA testified that she refused to go up the stairs of the motel, which impelled him to
    hold her by the hand and pull her upstairs, insisting that they would only talk and eat. He then talked to
    a male attendant who ushered them into a room. Upon entering the room, AAA tried to leave, but the
    accused closed the door and pushed her towards the bed. He forcefully undressed her completely, went
    on top of her, and forcibly inserted his penis inside her vagina. She kept on punching to try to stop him,
    but to no avail. After he was done, she immediately put on her clothes and left the room. But she was
    compelled to ride with him in the same passenger jeepney because she did not know her way back.
    Upon arriving home, she promptly reported the incident to German, who instructed her to contact the
    accused and agree to meet with him again so that they could apprehend him. She did as instructed. Just
    as they agreed, the accused went to the meeting place, where German quickly approached him and
    introduced himself as a police officer. The accused tried to run away, but German seized him and
    brought him to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for investigation. Dr. Wilfredo E. Tierra, the
    NBI medico-legal officer, conducted the medico-genital examination of AAA. He found the presence of
    fresh deep hymenal laceration at 5 o’clock position with edges bleeding; abrasion measuring 1.3 cm. on
    the left breast; and contusion measuring 1.5 cm. on the right hand of AAA

    On the other hand, plaintiff-appellee narrates that they walked together to the motel, where a
    room boy led them to their designated room, which had a doorknob that could be locked from the
    inside; that once they entered the room, she went to the restroom and later came out wearing only a
    towel; that she told him that she loved him, and they started kissing each other; that she took off the
    towel, while he undressed; that she did not resist when he went on top of her and inserted his penis in
    her vagina, but he stopped when she told him that she was not yet ready; that they then got dressed,
    left the motel together, and boarded a passenger jeepney; that after parting ways, she called him
    through his cellphone and asked if they could see each other again; and that once he arrived at the
    meeting place, a police officer later identified as German arrested and handcuffed him.

    RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape’

    CA- regarded AAA’s testimony as credible; and ruled that the presence of bruises and abrasions on the
    body of AAA proved that she had been subjected to bodily harm before he accomplished his lustful
    desires. It observed that the fact that the parties had gone home together after the incident was
    sufficiently explained by AAA’s statement that she had no choice but to go with him because she did not
    know her way back.

    Issue: WON the accused is guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

    1
    Held: No. In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond
    reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
    possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof
    which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

    In the case at bar, CA inexplicably ignored the probability of consensuality between the parties.
    Such findings did not justify the full rejection of the demonstrable consensuality of their sexual
    intercourse. Moreover, the mere presence of abrasions and contusions on her did not preclude the
    giving of her consent to the sexual intercourse, for abrasions and contusions could also be suffered
    during voluntary submission of the partners to each other’s lust. Such possibility calls for us to open our
    minds to the conclusion that the sexual intercourse resulted from consensuality between them.

    You might also like