[G.R. NO.

178321: October 5, 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

CONRADO LAOG y RAMIN, Accused-Appellant

FACTS:

On or about the 6th day of June, 2000, in the municipality of San Rafael,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, the above-named accused, with lewd
designs, by means of force, violence and intimidation, that is, by attacking
and hitting with a lead pipe one [AAA] which resulted in her incurring serious
physical injuries that almost caused her death, and while in such defenseless
situation, did then and there have carnal knowledge of said [AAA] against
her will and consent.

AAA testified that she and her friend, Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal, were
walking along the rice paddies on their way to apply for work at a canteen
near the National Highway in Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan. Suddenly,
appellant, who was holding an ice pick and a lead pipe, waylaid them and
forcibly brought them to a grassy area at the back of a concrete wall.
Without warning, appellant struck AAA in the head with the lead pipe
causing her to feel dizzy and to fall down. When Jennifer saw this, she cried
out for help but appellant also hit her on the head with the lead pipe,
knocking her down. Appellant stabbed Jennifer several times with the ice
pick and thereafter covered her body with thick grass.5 Appellant then
turned to AAA. He hit AAA in the head several times more with the lead pipe
and stabbed her on the face. While AAA was in such defenseless position,
appellant then raped her. After raping AAA, appellant also covered her with
grass. At that point, AAA passed out.

When AAA regained consciousness, she crawled until she reached her uncle’s
farm. Her uncle, BBB, and a certain Nano then brought her to Carpa Hospital
in Baliuag, Bulacan where she stayed for more than three weeks. She later
learned that Jennifer had died.

Appellant Conrado Laog y Ramin was charged with murder before the

Regional Trial Court. He was likewise charged before the same court with the
crime of rape of AAA.

When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The two cases
were thereafter tried jointly because they arose from the same incident.
Appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the killing of Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal and the rape of
AAA. He assails AAA’s credibility, the prosecution’s main witness, and points
out alleged inconsistencies in her testimony. Appellant also contends that
the prosecution failed to establish that he carefully planned the execution of
the crimes charged. Appellant further contends that the trial court and CA
erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength

ISSUE(S):

Whether or not the Trial Court failed to prove the accused-appellant’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt for the killing of Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal and the
rape of AAA.

RULING:

The appeal lacks merit.

Here, both the trial and appellate courts gave credence and full probative
weight to the testimony of AAA, the lone eyewitness to Jennifer’s killing and
was herself brutally attacked by appellant who also raped her. Appellant had
not shown any sufficiently weighty reasons for the Supreme Court to disturb
the trial court’s evaluation of the prosecution eyewitness’ credibility. Time
and again, the Court have held that positive identification of the accused,
when categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the
part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of
the appellant whose testimony is not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence.

While the court concur with the trial court’s conclusion that appellant indeed
was the one who raped AAA and killed Jennifer, the court find that
appellant should not have been convicted of the separate crimes of
murder and rape. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the
term "homicide" is to be understood in its generic sense, and includes
murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of
the rape. Hence, even if any or all of the circumstances (treachery, abuse of
superior strength and evident premeditation) alleged in the information have
been duly established by the prosecution, the same would not qualify the
killing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still rape
with homicide. It is immaterial that the person killed in this case is
someone other than the woman victim of the rape.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is considered
whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor and
purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the
crime. Clearly, the manner by which appellant had brutally slain Jennifer
with a lethal weapon, by first hitting her in the head with a lead pipe to
render her defenseless and vulnerable before stabbing her repeatedly,
unmistakably showed that appellant intentionally used excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to his unarmed victim.

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant Conrado
Laog y Ramin is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape
With Homicide.
 [G.R. NO. 117691: March 1, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

EDUARDO SAMPIOR y BERICO, Accused-Appellant

FACTS:

On March 5, 1994, private complainant, who is the eldest of appellant's nine

children, was left in their house with her two younger sisters and a 2-month
old infant brother.

Around 10:00 o'clock' in the morning, appellant returned to their house

alone. He told the two small girls to go downstairs and play. The two
obeyed, leaving only the appellant, the private complainant, and the
sleeping infant. After private complainant placed her charge in his cradle,
appellant suddenly pulled her towards him and began to take off her shirt
and panty. Private complainant resisted. Appellant persisted in his efforts.
He forced her to lie down on the floor and removed her panty. The accused
then removed his pants and brief and placed himself on top of her. He held
his penis and inserted it into the vagina of the complainant. After a short
while, the appellant pulled out his genital organ, which emitted a fluid-like
substance. He then told complainant to dress up. He warned her not to tell
anybody about the incident, otherwise he would kill them all. Shortly
thereafter, appellant left the house.

At around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, appellant returned
home smelling of liquor. He found private complainant alone and sexually
abused her again.

On March 14, 1994, private complainant, with her mother's consent,

reported the rapes to the police. Private complainant filed two separate
complaints for rape against her own father. On arraignment, appellant,
assisted by the public attorney, pleaded "Not guilty" to each charge.

Dr. Toledo testified that he did not find any laceration of the complainant's
hymen nor any contusions or other injuries in her body. The appellant chose
not to present his side of the case. Instead, the defense presented the
private complainant as a hostile witness to testify that there was no full
penile penetration of her womanhood.
On June 29, 1994, the trial court convicted appellant of two counts of
rape. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE(S):

Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that appellant is guilty of rape
beyond reasonable doubt, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with the
accessory penalties provided by law.

RULING:

On the first assigned error, appellant's argues he should not have been

convicted of rape, but only of frustrated rape. Appellant's virgo
intacta theory has already received short shrift from the Court. A broken
hymen or laceration of any part of the female genitalia is not a prerequisite
for a rape conviction. Nor is a medical examination indispensable to the
prosecution of rape, as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court
that a conviction for rape is proper. A medical examination of the victim, as
well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character. What is
important, the trial court said, is that the testimony of private complainant
about the incident is clear, unequivocal, and credible. A daughter would
not accuse her own father of such an unspeakable crime as
incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved.

Furthermore, the Court now holds that the crime of frustrated rape is non-
existent in our criminal law. The Court declared that the merest touch of the
male organ upon the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight,
consummates the rape.

On the second assigned error, the court finds that the appellant's

conviction for two counts of rape by the trial court is well supported by the
evidence. It did not err in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

However, the Court finds that the trial court awarded neither civil indemnity
nor moral damages to the offended party. Pursuant to current jurisprudence,
the private complainant is entitled to such.

The decision of the trial court sentencing appellant Eduardo Sampior y Berico
to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided by law, for each
one of the two counts of rape is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATION that, for each count of rape, appellant shall pay
complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
 [G.R. NO. 176633: September 5, 2007]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO, JR., Accused-Appellant

FACTS:

AAA testified that at around 11:00 o'clock in the morning of 12 December

1997, she was in her friend's house as they were discussing the things to be
done in school the following day. She stayed there for less than three
minutes. Thereafter, she went to the house of her friend's auntie, which was
only beside the house of her friend, and stayed there for about three
minutes. She then returned to her friend's house where she stayed for only
two minutes because she heard a sudden call coming from the house of her
cousin, Ana. She peeped inside and tried to find out who made the said call.
But since the lights were off, she went inside the house without knowing that
the appellant was there. The appellant was at Ana's house because he was a
friend of Ana's husband and he constantly slept there.

At such instance, she saw the appellant lying on the wooden bed
remorselessly staring at her. When she was about to leave the said house,
appellant pulled her right hand. She tried to remove appellant's grip on her
using her left hand, but she failed. Subsequently, appellant dragged her and
pushed her to the wooden bed where she fell on her back. Appellant also
threatened to punch her if she will not accede to his desire. Then, while on a
kneeling position, appellant pinned her right arm at the back of her head and
squeezed her legs with his thighs. He pulled down his "maong" shorts,
released her legs and pulled down her cycling shorts and underwear. She
banged the wall of the house using her left elbow to get some help, but
nobody came. Appellant then placed himself on top of her and succeeded in
inserting his penis into her vagina, causing her so much pain. Afterward, she
felt something wet came out from appellant's penis. And while the appellant
was still on top of her, Ana arrived and saw them in that position. The
appellant stood up and left. She likewise stood up and went home.

Ana corroborated AAA's testimony. BBB, as well as Ana, accompanied AAA to

Precinct 1 of the Makati City Police Station to report the incident.

Dr. Vertido testified that he was the one who conducted the medical
examination. Dr. Vertido explained that AAA has a distensible hymen,
which means that AAA's hymen is incapable of being ruptured even if
penetrated by the male organ.

Appellant invoked the "sweetheart defense." He stated that he had known

AAA for 10 years because they were neighbors. He started courting her in
January 1997, and AAA accepted his offer of love in August 1997. He
likewise asserted that AAA gave him a love letter; however, it was lost when
his wallet was stolen. He further averred that the sexual intercourse between
him and AAA on 12 December 1997 was actually their third time to engage
in the sexual act. He professed that the first sexual encounter between
him and AAA happened on 27 August 1997, between 8:00-8:30 in the
evening in a jeepney parked at the garage of Danarra Condominium, while
the second time was on his birthday, 4 September 1997, at around 9:00
p.m., as the same was AAA's gift to him. Jacqueline, the other defense
witness, testified that the relationship of the appellant and AAA as lovers
was a matter of general knowledge in their neighborhood.

As a result of the sexual assault, AAA got pregnant and on 1 August 1998 or
after seven months, she gave birth to a baby boy. According to AAA, the
father of her baby was the appellant because of what the appellant did to
her.

The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on 31 October 2006 affirming the
Decision of the RTC. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal
before the Court.

ISSUE(S):

Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of the crime of
rape as the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was
consensual as they were sweethearts.

RULING:

The "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the

intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. Being an affirmative
defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some
documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes,
pictures and the like. Likewise, the "sweetheart theory" that the appellant
proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and
consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship
by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense
should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence. In this
case, however, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. Other than his
self-serving assertions, there was no support to his claim that he and AAA
were lovers. Although the other defense witness, Jacqueline, claimed that
the relationship of the appellant and AAA was of general knowledge to the
community, she cannot name even a single person who knew of such
relationship.

Appellant also avers that the failure of the complainant to shout or

make an outcry, despite the fact the he was unarmed, belies the
claim of rape.

Case law has it that the failure of the victim to shout or offer tenacious
resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal
acts of the accused. Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably
to the usual expectations of everyone. There is no standard form of
reaction for a woman, much more a minor, when facing a shocking
and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault.

Likewise, appellant's assertion that the complainant has not been

raped because the medical examination conducted on the
complainant showed no sign of any physical injury deserves scant
consideration. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility
of rape cannot be ruled out. The rupture of the hymen or laceration of any
part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.

Finally, appellant's contention that the testimony of the complainant

is not credible, is untenable.

Finally, appellant's contention that the testimony of the complainant

is not credible, is untenable.

The Court, upon examining the records of the present case, fully agrees in
the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the
testimony of the complainant is credible. Her testimony on how she was
raped by the appellant was characterized by the trial court and affirmed by
the appellate court as candid, clear and categorical. Likewise the act of the
complainant in filing a complaint against the appellant, few hours after the
rape incident happened, can be regarded as an indication of a truthful
narration that indeed, she was raped by the appellant. It is settled that no
woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to
public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape
and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.
Given the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the general
rule that factual findings of the trial court, more so if affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, should not be disturbed on appeal, as they are not clearly
arbitrary or unfounded.

Appellant is guilty of simple rape which is punishable by reclusion

perpetua.

As regards the award of damages, the appellate court merely affirmed the
award of the trial court without any modification.

It is also proper for the appellate court to require the appellant to support
the child, CCC, born from the appellant's act committed against the
complainant.