Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

1. People v. Christian Sandagon (G.R. No.

106897) June 13, 1994

Maricel Dolera, 15 years old, went to Quezon Memorial Circle on December 2, 1991
to find uncle, Antonio Augis, to help her with securing a residence certificate. Not finding
him there, she approached the appellant, Christian Sandagon, and asked him if he knew her
uncle. He said yes and even offered to accompany her to Antonio's house. She agreed gratefully
and the two boarded a jeep for Fairview. They alighted at a place near a vegetable patch, and
there Sandagon's manner suddenly changed. At knife point, she was taken to an uninhabited
shanty where he forced himself upon her. She tried to resist but had to submit in the end when
he slapped and threatened to kill her. He pushed his penis into her mouth and there ejaculated.
He raped her twice that afternoon. Afterwards, Sandagon took her to a restaurant and then
to a four-bedroom house, where Sandagon had a drinking spree with his friends until 8:00 in
the evening. Sandagon and she slept in the sala that night and the appellant again violated her.
From there they went to several places, including Lagro and Laguna. They were together
everywhere they went and she could not ask for help from anybody because Sandagon never
left her side. Sandagon was a light sleeper and woke up immediately whenever she did. She
was virtually a prisoner, with Sandagon keeping close watch. Finally, a month after her
abduction, she told him she was agreeing to live with him and was thus able to persuade him
to allow her to get her clothes from her uncle's house. There she revealed her ordeal to
her family, which took immediate steps to bring Sandagon to justice.

Medical examination: on January 2, 1992, revealed a deep healed laceration of the

hymen and indicated she may have had more than one sexual intercourse. There was no
external sign of the recent application of any form of trauma upon her.

RTC: Appellant was convicted of rape, reclusion perpetua

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of rape

Story given by Maricel of her alleged abduction and multiple rapes is intrinsically weak
and difficult to accept; more like an elopement gone sour. For the prosecution to succeed, it
is also necessary to find that the complainant's story is by itself believable independently of the
presumption. The conviction of the accused must rest on the strength of the prosecution
and not the weakness of the defense. The Court also notes that although Maricel was gone
for one whole month, her family did not take any action to look for her or to report her
disappearance to the police, which is more consistent with the appellant's claim of elopement
rather than the complainant's story of abduction and rape. The appealed judgment is
REVERSED. Appellant Christian Sandagon is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt
and ordered to be released immediately.

2. People v. Roberto Abay (G.R. No. 177752) February 24, 2009

AAAs stepfather, her mothers (BBB) live-in partner, had been sexually abusing her
since 7 years old. Whenever her mother was working or was asleep in the evening, appellant
would threaten her with a bladed instrument and force her to undress and engage in sexual
intercourse with him. Although BBB knew Abays dastardly acts, she refused to report it since
the latter would beat her up. But, when she caught Abay molesting her daughter on December
25, 1999, she immediately reported it to the police station.
Dr. Guerrero-Manalo: appellant had been sexually abusing AAA for six years.
RTC found appellant guilty (death penalty), CA affirmed RTC with modifications (simple
rape, reclusion perpetua).

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of sexual abuse or rape

Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual
abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for
statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with
reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be
charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A
(except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of
both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. Records
are replete with evidence establishing that appellant forced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse
with him on December 25, 1999. Appellant is therefore found GUILTY of rape under Article 266-
A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, to conform
with existing jurisprudence, he is ordered to pay AAA 75,000 as civil indemnity ex-delicto24 and
75,000 as moral damages.

3. People v. Ernesto Fragante (G.R. No. 182521) February 9, 2011

Appellant was charged with 9 counts of acts of lasciviousness and 1 count of rape
(filed on January 1998) committed against his own minor daughter; by wilfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously fondling and sucking the breasts, touching, licking, and inserting finger into
AAAs vagina. AAA was raped in September 1995, when she was asked to get inside his
fathers room, and was scolded by him before she was made to lie down in his bed.

RTC and CA found the accused guilty of the crimes charged.

ISSUE: Whether CA erred in affirming appellants conviction for 9 counts of acts of

lasciviousness and 1 count of rape.

SC SUSTAINED appellant's conviction for seven (7) counts of acts of
lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape. We ACQUIT appellant for two (2) counts of acts
of lasciviousness (Criminal Case Nos. 98-652 & 98-658) on the ground of reasonable doubt.

4. People v. Judy Salidaga (G.R. No. 172323) January 29, 2007

On December 20, 2002, appellant was charged of rape. On or about December 16,
2002, the accused, armed with knife, had sexual intercourse with AAA, who was then alone
and asleep at their house in Bolante, Pasig City. She claimed that she lost consciousness when
the appellant went on top of her and poked a knife at her neck. After satisfying his lust,
appellant left the victims house.

RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt, CA affirmed RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court and CA erred in convicting the accused/ whether or not
the trial court and CA were able to establish the appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A woman raped in a state of unconsciousness would not be able to narrate her
defloration during that state, and her violation may be proved indirectly by other evidence.
However, her medico-legal report stated that she is in a non-virgin state physically, given
the fact that she was cohabiting with BBB in December 2002. Supposed weakness of
appellants defense of alibi has been overlooked by RTC and CA. Previous decisions have

5. People v. Felipe Padilla (G.R. No. 145460) July 3, 2002

In the afternoon, on or about the November 24, 1996, in Sindangan, Zamboanga
del Norte, the accused had sexual intercourse with Gemma Tadas, his 13-year old
stepdaughter, against her will and without her consent while her siblings and her mother were
not around. She claimed that the appellant returned home at 4 in the afternoon, she grappled
with her, tied her legs to the bamboo floor, and the baby, whom Gemma was carrying, was
thrown to the floor. Appellant undressed her, and had sexual intercourse with her for about an
hour. After that, she saw blood coming out from her vagina.

On the other hand, appellant claimed that on November 24, 1996, he was taking care
of his wife, Erlita Tadas, who just gave birth on the previous day. Likewise, her wife testified
that she stayed at home the whole day on the 24th since she could not walk, and that Gemma
only filed the case upon the prodding of Erlitas brothers and sisters who dont approve of her
cohabitation with the appellant.

RTC and CA: guilty of qualified rape, death penalty.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of qualified rape

SC found the evidence to be insufficient to sustain the ruling of the trial court that
accused-appellant is guilty of qualified rape. First, it is improbable that he could have three
orgasms within a space of only one hour; an interval of two minutes is insufficient before
another successful coitus can be had. Second, there was no hymenal lacerations or even
healed ones despite her being raped 3 times. Third, no external physical injury was found
despite her claim that she was forced to lie down and tied to the bamboo floor. Fourth,
testimonies of complainants mother and appellant assume significance. Complainant
must provide sufficient evidence in accordance with human nature. Appellant is

6. People v. Esteban Cantila, Jr. (G.R. No. 139458) December 27, 2002

Leslie Rosalejos, complainant, testified that on August 25, 1995, she was playing
chiki-cha, a local game with appellant and her employer, Engr. Raul Ramos at the latters
house in Cagayan De Oro City. At 10:30 in the evening, after their game ended, they went
back to their respective rooms. Complainants room was adjacent to appellants room, and
only separated by a plywood. Upon entering her room, she saw a towel and a bottle of rubbing
alcohol which the appellant asked her to bring it to him. In his room, he pushed her to his bed,
pressed her down, pointed a knife at her, and then inserted his penis into his vagina. The
following morning, he told his employer what happened.

On the other hand, the appellant claimed that he and the complainant are lovers, and
that the carnal act was consensual. He also denied using force or intimidation.

RTC: Guilty, reclusion perpetua

ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of rape, and sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua

Physical evidence to corroborate complainants claim of resistance is absent. The
"sweetheart theory" interposed by appellant may be weak, but it should not be dismissed
with undue haste. Prosecutions evidence must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot
be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

7. People v. Jose Perez (G.R. No. 182924) December 24, 2008

On or about September 19, 1999, around 9 in the evening, at Palawan, the accused
had carnal knowledge with AAA, a 6-year old, against her will and consent. Testimonies
reveal that on September 19, 1999, AAA, together with his father and 2 other siblings, was
at the house of Florencio Bumanlag, watching a movie. The movie ended at 9 in the evening.
AAAs father noticed that she was crying, and told him that appellant hit her on the eye and
punched her abdomen. They went home after where the mother noticed that AAAs vagina was
bleeding. At 3 AM the next day, AAA told her mother that appellant brought her at the back
of the house of Oring Ragote where appellant inserted his finger and penis into her

RTC: statutory rape, death penalty, CA: guilty of statutory rape, reclusion perpetua

ISSUE: Whether the court a quo erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of

First, Testimony of AAA was neither made up nor coached (leading and misleading
questions are allowed to a child of tender years). Second, witnesses are to be weighed, not
numbered (testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the
same appears to be trustworthy and reliable; if credible and convincing, that alone would
be sufficient to convict the accused). Third, the hymenal laceration inflicted on AAA was
caused by the penetration of a penis or even by a finger which is consistent with AAAs
declaration that appellant first inserted his finger into her vagina followed by his penis.
Fourth, absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. Fifth, when there is no evidence
to show any improper motive on the part of the rape victim to testify falsely against the
accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is
that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
8. People v. Edwin Gayeta (G.R. No. 171654) December 17, 2008

On July 24, 1995, around 8 PM, at Oriental Mindoro, spouses Benjamin and
Conchita Nicer were drinking tuba when two armed men, Arnaldo Reano, Edwin Gayeta,
barged into their house, announced a hold-up, and were able to get P2,500 from them. The
couple reported it at once to the barangay officials who immediately sought police assistance.
Meanwhile, spouses BBB and AAA were watching television when the said armed men also
barged in. BBB asked AAA to get money from the store. Upon reaching the store, AAA gave
P5,000 to appellant. While in the act of getting the money, appellant inserted one of his hands
inside AAA's short pants. Afterwards, appellant ordered her to undress and lie down on
the floor. Appellant also removed his pants, lay on top of AAA, and forcibly had sexual
intercourse with her. They went back to the house where appellant also forced AAA to hand
over several pieces of jewelry. AAA immediately told BBB that appellant had sexually abused

For his defense, appellant claimed that he was conducting surveillance and patrol
activities as a member of the Brigada Lakas in his barangay from 9:00 p.m. of 24 July 1995
to 5:00 a.m. of 25 July 1995 in Putatan, Muntinlupa City.

RTC: guilty of robbery with rape, CA affirmed decision of RTC

ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of robbery with rape

The victims positively identified appellant as the one who broke into the house of the
former, and who robbed and ravished the latter. Clearly, robbery was consummated when
appellant took the money belonging to Conchita by means of intimidation. He presented the
barangay logbook to support his alibi. The OSG correctly countered that this document was
neither authenticated nor identified by the persons who supposedly issued them.
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of ROBBERY (Criminal Case No. P-5420), and
robbery with rape (Criminal Case No. P-5422); reclusion perpetua; no eligibility of

9. People v. Claro Jampas (G.R. No. 177766) July 17, 2009

During the mid-year of 1999, around 11 in the morning, AAA, 8-year old Grade 1
pupil, resident of Brgy. Villa-Consuelo, Naval, Biliran, Province, was called by her uncle,
the husband of her aunt. When she approached him, he carried him into the lawting (upper
part of the house), where the accused remover her short pants and panty, placed on top of her,
kissed her, pointed a knife at her to warn her not to tell anyone or he would kill her, and
succeeded in having a carnal knowledge of her against her will. AAA still went to school in
the afternoon without telling anyone. But, the following day, she told her mother, who then
relayed it to her older sister, who then also relayed to her grandmother. Her grandmother
disbelieved the tale, but it took a relative, Tita FFF to report to brgy. Captain who informed
the police.

Appellant, however, claimed that he was in Manila in June 1999, and returned to
Biliran only in February 2000. He also claimed that AAA was impelled by vengeance in
filing criminal complaint since he was rumoured to have impregnated her mother.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of rape

Nothing in the records, however, sufficiently explains why there was indeed such
"considerable delay." In view of the inevitability of a judicial scrutiny, it is a given that
evidentiary matters of a descriptive or illustrative nature be supplied during trial to detail
the recital of elemental facts in the Information (no kissing was disclosed to have
happened and no knife was mentioned at all, contrary to what appears in the
Information). In another vein, there is grain of doubt as to whether there was indeed an
attic or mezzanine locally known as lawting that was described by AAA to be eight meters
high, where appellants house was depicted to be a mere bungalow. With regards to the
healed incomplete hymenal laceration, it could possibly be that AAA was raped several
months prior to the examination by appellant or by someone else, or she has not been
raped at all. Appellant is ACQUITTED.

10. People v. Nelson Arraz (G.R. No. 183696) October 24, 2008

On April 21, 2003, AAA, 14 years old, at 3 AM, at Sitio Libtong, Barangay Lupi,
Tinambac, Camarines Sur, was awakened by her uncle, appellant, who was then kissing
her. Appellant held her hand and placed on top of her, removed his shorts and inserted
his penis into her vagina which made her cry. AAA did not tell her grandmother since she
knew that she would only side with the appellant, being her grandmothers favorite son.
Instead, AAA reported it to whom she believed to be a member of the NPA, who later
turned out to be an officer of the Philippine Army, and brought her to Tinambacs DSWD.

Appellant claimed that on April 21, 2003, at 12 midnight, he tried kissing AAA
because he saw her lying alone and that he was then drunk.

RTC: guilty of rape, death penalty; and CA: guilty of rape, reclusion perpetua

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A
in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC

The lower courts did not err in giving credence to the testimony of AAA. AAA
clearly and straightforwardly testified that appellant raped her. Her testimony was
supported by her medico-legal which states that there was an old healed hymenal laceration.
First, date of commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Second, lust does
not respect time and place. Third, physical resistance is not an essential element of rape.
Fourth, no uniform behaviour expected of victims after being raped (AAA reported it to
someone instead of her grandmother). Appellant is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt.