PEOPLE v RELLOTA 1.
He could not have possibly raped AAA in September 1993 because his wife was
August 3, 2010 || Peralta, J.
FACTS:
AAA was a little over 12 years old when the incidents allegedly happened.
She lives with her aunt, DDD, and her husband Alejandro Rellota (appellant),
together with her siblings BBB and CCC and their 2 cousins. The couple was sending
the three siblings to school, while DDD was working overseas when the incidents took
place.
AAA said appellant has been kissing her and touching her private parts since
September 1993, and that she was raped several times between that period until
January 1994, usually at night when other members of the house were out or asleep.
She would resist but appellant would threaten her with a bolo and that he would kill
her siblings if she resisted.
The first reported incident was on December 20, 1993. AAA had just
finished taking a bath, and when she went inside the house, appellant followed her to
the bedroom, pulled down her towel, tied her hands with rope before forcibly
inserting his penis into her vagina. AAA fought back by kicking and scratching him,
but he was not deterred. Thereafter, he untied her hands, left the room, then came
back a few minutes later to rape her again.
Second was on January 31, 1994, when AAA was once again raped after
taking a bath. He kissed her and touched her private part, while AAA kicked him
and scratched his arms. She was able to push him. After which, appellant ran out the
door. After that incident, AAA told her older sister about appellant’s repeated deeds.
They reported the incidents to the police station. Three separate complaints for rape
were filed against appellant with the trial court.
RTC – 3 counts of rape. Did not impose death penalty because AAA was above 12
years old. Relationship between AAA and appellant was not sufficiently established
because of lack of documentary evidence.
CA – affirmed with modifications. 2 counts of consummated rape, 1 count of
attempted rape.
Defense of appellant:
1) He could not have possibly raped AAA in September 1993 because his wife was
still in the Philippines that time;
2) Based on AAA’s testimonies, he merely kissed and touched her, but did not say he
inserted his penis into her vagina.
ISSUE:
W/N appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 2 consummated rape and 1
attempted rape? SHOULD BE 2 counts of consummated rape and 1 count for
acts of lasciviousness.
RATIO:
still in the Philippines that time – DEVOID OF MERIT
 It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. There have
been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as
indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by
side. There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.
2. Based on AAA’s testimonies, he merely kissed and touched her, but did not say
he inserted his penis into her vagina – DEVOID OF MERIT
 AAA categorically stated during her testimony that she was raped. Moreover,
the inconsistencies appellant pointed out were minor ones which do not
affect AAA’s credibility.
 Furthermore, AAA’s testimonies were strengthened by the medico-legal
report by Dr. Onggao, who testified that there was laceration in AAA’s hymen
caused by forcible entry of a hard object, penis.
3. The Supreme Court disagrees with CA’s modification on attempted rape.
AAA’s testimony belies the consummation, as well as attempt to rape her
on January 31, 1994.
 The elements of attempted rape were wanting in the January 31, 1994
event. But his acts still fall within the elements of acts of lasciviousness. All
the elements are present: (People v Bon)
o Offender commits any acts of lasciviousness or lewdness
o It is done (a) by force and intimidation or (b) when offended party
deprived of reason/unconscious or (c) when offended party under
12 y.o.
o Offended party is another person of either sex
 Appellant’s act of removing the towel wrapped in AAA’s body, laying her on
the sofa and kissing and touching her private parts are lascivious or lewd.
There was also existing and apparent intimidation from appellant according
to AAA’s testimony.
 Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and the offense
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved. Acts of lasciviousness or abusos dishonestos are necessarily
included in rape. Therefore, accused may still be convicted of acts of
lasciviousness despite being different from the offense charged.
RULING:
GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF RAPE AND ONE CRIME OF ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS.