People v Alfredo (Velasco, Jr.; 2010) Issue: Whether he is guilty of 2 counts of rape.
(Yes)
Facts:
March 2001, AAA, six months pregnant, went home to Butiyao, Benguet, with her family, to
harvest the peppers planted in their garden. April 27, 2001, AAA and her son, BBB, returned
to their sayote plantation in Cadian, Topdac, Atok, Benguet to harvest sayote. Next day they
transport it to baguio and she and her son stayed at their rented shack and retired early to
bed.
In the middle of the night, AAA was awakened by a beam of light coming from the gaps in the
walls of the shack directly illuminating her face. She asked who it was but nobody answered
and light switched off, after a few minutes, the light was switched on again. Thereafter, a male
voice shouted "Rumwar kayo ditta no saan kayo nga rumwar paletpeten kayo iti bala!",
frightened she woke up her son. The man shouted again and AAA cried out of fear.
Anxious that the person outside would kill her and her son, AAA lit the gas and invited the
man inside (wtf?) but he held her hand and told her to come with him uphill, because of fear
she obeyed. Upon reaching a sloping ground she ordered her to remove her clothes, she
attempted to stop he slapped her. Completely naked, AAA was again ordered to walk uphill.
Upon reaching a grassy portion, she was ordered to lie down on the stump and spread her
legs w/c accused lit with his flashlight then removed his pants/brief then inserted his penis
into her vagina, threatened to box her if she moves. Accused-appellant also held AAA’s
breast, as well as the other parts of her body. Then stood up and directed the flashlight at
her then 10 min. later had sex again, stood up and lit a cigarette.
Afterwards, accused-appellant went on top of AAA again and tried to insert his penis in the
latter’s vagina. His penis, however, has already softened (hahaha). Frustrated, accused-
appellant knelt and inserted his fingers in her vagina. After removing his fingers, accused-
appellant held a twig about 10 inches long and the size of a small finger in diameter which he
used to pierce her vagina. Dissatisfied, accused-appellant removed the twig and inserted the
flashlight in her vagina. After accused-appellant removed the flashlight from AAA’s vagina, he
went on top of her again, after he then threatened her not to tell anyone then left.
She rested 15 min. for she was weakened then went back to the shack and woke up her son
then boarded a jeep to report the incident to the police. Medical examination showed
hemorrhage on the right eye and multiple head injuries and found that there was confluent
abrasion on the left and medial aspects of her labia minora.
Defense’s story:
He saw AAA stealing a pile of sayote belonging to his family and he shouted at her w/c
prompted her to run away. He then packed the sayote and found out that he was only able
to sacked 8 of them w/c should have been 10. So he went to AAA’s shack and saw a sack of
sayote bearing his father’s name and told her to leave the place for what she was doing was
wrong and further told her he knew she stole those sayotes but decided not to get them
back. Then he went home, watched a tagalog movie w/ his family then slept.
Trial Court:
Between the two conflicting versions of the incident, the trial court gave credence to the
version of the prosecution and found him guilty of two counts of rape w/c the CA affirmed
from w/c he appealed.
Ratio:
Alibi is an inherently weak defense
Accused-appellant failed to present convincing evidence that he did not leave his house,
which is only about 150 meters away from the shack of AAA,
The validity of conviction is not adversely affected by the fact that the judge who
rendered judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses
The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion
to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial, but merely relied on the records of
the case, does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record
is sufficient to support its conclusion
The guilt of accused-appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt
In reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be made: (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall
on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.53Nonetheless, it is also worth noting that rape is essentially
committed in relative isolation or secrecy; thus, it is most often only the victim who can
testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus.
In the instant case, accused-appellant is charged with two counts of rape, one under
paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and the other under par. 2 of Art.
266-A.
The elements of rape under par. 1(a) of Art. 266-A of the Code are the following: (1) that
the offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that
such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation
The elements of rape under par. 2 of Art. 266-A of the Code are as follows: (1) that the
offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) that the act of sexual assault is committed by
inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any instrument
or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and that the act of sexual assault
is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others.
Notably, the prosecution has sufficiently established the existence of the foregoing elements,
due to AAA’s testimonies. AAA testified that accused-appellant threatened to riddle her and
her son with bullets if they do not open the door of their shack. Accused-appellant thereafter
forcibly pulled her hair and dragged her to the mountains. AAA pleaded for her life.
Nonetheless, accused-appellant boxed her every time she did not yield to his demands. He
boxed her thighs forcing AAA to sit, and he threatened to box her if she moves while he
carried out his bestial desires. Also, it should be noted that the findings in the medical
examination of Dr. Ged-ang corroborated the testimony of AAA.
Held: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision dated September 30, 2008 in
CA-G.R. CR- H.C. No. 02135 finding accused-appellant Ricky Alfredo guilty of rape is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As thus modified, accused-appellant in Criminal Case
No. 01- CR-4213 is ordered to pay PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral
damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No. 01-CR-4214, accused-
appellant is likewise ordered to pay PhP 30,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 30,000 as moral
damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.
People v Rellota (Peralta; 2010)
FACTS:
 AAA (offended party) was born on July 16,1981, and was a little over 12 years old
when the incidents allegedly happened.
 Together with her siblings BBB and CCC, they lived with DDD (her aunt) and the
latter’s second husband (the appellant). Also living with them was two of AAA’s
cousins.
 At the time the incidents happened, DDD was working overseas.
 Based on the testimony of AAA:
o Appellant had been kissing her and touching her private parts since
September 1993 and raped her several times between September 1993
and January 1994
o He would usually rape her at night, when everyone was away or asleep
o She resisted but was of no use. Appellant would also have a bolo beside
him. He would threaten her that he would kill her brother and sister and
that he would stop sending her to school.
o On December 20, 1993, she took a bath at an artesian well near their
house and had only a towel wrapped around her body afterwards.
Appellant followed her to her bedroom, pulled down the towel and tied
her hands with a rope before forcibly inserting his penis inside her vagina.
Afterwards, appellant untied her hands and left the room, but soon
return thereafter and raped her again.
o On January 31, 1994, the same incident happened. Appellant began kissing
and touching her private parts but AAA kicked him and scratched him.
She was able to push him and appellant ran out the door. After this
incident, AAA told her older sister about the repeated deeds of the
appellant.
o Three separate complaints for rape were filed
 Lewd design
 Force and intimidation
 Sexual intercourse with a minor 12 years of age
 On 3 separate dates ( December 1993, September 1993,
January 31, 1994)
o Appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty* The prosecutor
presented AAA’s and Rosaline Onggao’s(a medical officer) testimonies.
o On the other hand, the defense presented the testimony of the defendant
who denied the charges against him, stating that he could not think of any
reason why the complainant filed the complaints. He also mentioned that
his sister-in-law, who helped the complainant filed the charges, was mad
at him for not giving her a loan.
o TRIAL COURT DECISION: Found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of 3 counts of rape alleged in the complaints (sentenced to
reclusion perpetua). The TC reasoned out that AAA was already over 12
years old when the incidents happened and the relationship of AAA and
appellant was not sufficiently established as the marriage of her aunt and
the appellant was not supported by any documents, thus, the penalty of
death cannot be imposed.
o Case was appealed to the SC but was transferred to the CA in
conformity with the modified provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure
o CA DECISION: AFFIRMED with modification the TC Decision. Guilty of
2 counts of consummated rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
However for the incident which happened on January 31, 1994, the
accused was found guily of attempted rape and sentenced to 6 years
prision correcional to 10 years prision mayor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not acquitting the appellant despite the fact
that AAA’s testimony was inconsistent and full of falsehoods.
HELD:
 CA decision convicting appellant of 2 counts of rape was affirmed with medication
that the accused is also guilt of crimes of acts of lasciviousness as defined in the
RPC in relation to Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 and sentenced to 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal (with
P15,000 moral damages)
RATIO:
OSG’s comments:
 The prosecution was able to satisfactorily prove the that the appellant raped AAA
in September and December 1993.
 The medical report bolsters the victim’s claim that she was repeatedly raped and
the denial of the accused is weak and deserves scant consideration
 There is inadequate proof that the accused raped AAA on January 31, 1994
Appellant’s Contentions & Corresponding decision of SC
 It was impossible for him to rape AAA in September 1993 since his wife only left
for Jeddah on October 21, 1993
o LUST is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the
room nor the presence of other people therein or the high risk of getting
caught has been held as sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the
commission of rape.
o There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion
 He points out that AAA herself testified that he only kissed her and touched her
breast and private parts, but failed to mentioned that he inserted his penis inside
her vagina
o AAA categorically stated during her testimony that she was raped
o During her testimony she mentioned that “He forced me and inserted his
penis inside my vagina” and when asked how long it was inside she replied
“one minute” ( HAHAHA)
o The testimony of AAA positively identifying the appellant was all the
more strengthened by the Medico-Legal Report conducted by Dr.
 Rosaline Onggao, who testified that there was a healed laceration in the
hymen caused by forcible entry of a hard object which could be the penis.
 He denied raping AAA on January 31, 1994 and December 20, 1993
o His denial constitutes negative self-serving evidence which deserves no
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who
testified on affirmative matters
o There was no substantial evidence to support his denia
o However, for the incident on January 31, 1994, AAA testified that the
accused did not insert his penis inside her vagina because she already told
her sister about the past incidents.
o SC ruled that this could not be attempted rape since the elements for
attempted are not all present. The appellant’s act of removing the towel
of AAA, laying her on the sofa, and kissing and touching her private parts
does not exactly demonstrate the intent of the appellant to have carnal
knowledge with AAA.
o Even so, these acts are not to be left unpunished since the act could be
considered as a crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined in the RPC in
relation to Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 (Child Abuse Law
 The elements of the crime of acts lasciviousness are: (1) that
the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2)
that it is done: (a) by using force and intimidation or (b) when
the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years
of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of
either sex.
 Section 32, Article XIII, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610 or
the Child Abuse Law defines lascivious conduct, as follows:
 [T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with
an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire
of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic
area of a person.
 Clearly, all the elements of the offense are present. The actions of appellant on
January 31, 1994, i.e., laying AAA on the sofa and kissing and touching her private
parts are, by definition, lascivious or lewd, and based on AAA's testimony, the
intimidation from appellant was in existence and apparent. Section 5 of R.A. No.
7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also
one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or
intimidation. As case law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is
sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the
free exercise of the will of the offended party. 51 This is especially true in the case
of young, innocent and immature girls who could not be expected to act with
equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel. Young girls cannot be expected
to act like adults under the same circumstances or to have the courage and
intelligence to disregard the threat.
o Incidentally, under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
procedure, when there is 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.
 He also claimed that the criminal charges were instigated by AAA’s aunt for his
refusal to lend money
o There is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the
rape victim to falsely testify against him or to falsely implicate him in the
commission of the crime.
 In short, appellant assails the credibility of AAA’s testimony as shown by its
inconsistencies and falsehoods.
o Her statements were not inconsistent. There was a lapse of time
between the first and second rape. Likewise, when AAA testified that she
put on her t shirt and panty, she was referring to the first time of the
rape. Between the first and second rape, AAA had enough time to dress
up ( Apparently, this was the inconsistency the appellant was referring
to—whether she had clothes or not, since she initially said she was only
wearing a towel)
o Nevertheless, the inconsistencies were only with regards to minor
details. Inconsistencies of this nature are trivial and forgivable, considering
that a victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each of the
previous incidents since these may just be but mere fragments of a
prolonged and continuing nightmare, a cavalry she might even struggling
to forget.
The Court is guided by the following principles with regards to the crime of RAPE:
 The prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable
doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction;
 The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense;
 Unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the
credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal;
 An accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and,
 In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are
usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution
People v Abello (Brion; 2009)
FACTS
Heracleo Abello y Fortada stands convicted of :
 1 count of violation of paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended
o sentenced to 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of
reclusion temporal
 2 counts of violation of sexual abuse under RA No. 7610 (Child Abuse Law).
o Sentenced to 2 reclusion perpetua
The victim in these cases is 21 years old AAA.
 contracted polio when she was 7 months old
 not able to study on account of her difficulty in walking
On June 30, 1998 at around 4:00 o’clock a.m., AAA was sleeping in their house in
Kalyeng Impiyerno, Navotas, Metro Manila along with her sister-in-law and nephew.
She was suddenly awakened when Abello mashed her breast.
 this happened again on July 2, 1999 at around 3:00 a.m.
 In these two occasions AAA was able to recognize Abello because of
the light coming from outside which illuminated the house.
On July 8, 1998, at around 2:00 a.m., Abello this time placed his soft penis inside the
mouth of AAA.
 The latter got awaken when Abello accidentally kneeled on her right
hand.
 AAA exclaimed “Aray” forcing the accused to hurriedly enter his room.
He was nevertheless seen by AAA.
 The victim on the same date reported the incident to her sister-in-law
and mother.
Amidst the accusation of raping and twice sexually abusing AAA, Abello interposed
the defense of denial.
 Abello claimed that he merely stepped on the victim at the sala on his
way to his room after retiring home.
The RTC found Abello guilty under the three Informations.
 Violation of Paragraph 2, Article 226-A, RA 8353
o Sentenced to 7 Years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 13 Years
of reclusion temporal, as maximum;
 2 counts of Violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610
o Sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 Years
of prision correctional, as minimum, to 12 years and 1
day of prision mayor, as maximum
The CA affirmed Abellos conviction on appeal but modified the penalties imposed. The
dispositive portion of its decision reads:
 Violation of Paragraph 2, Article 226-A, RA 8353
o sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years
of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum;
o further ordered to pay complainant, AAA, moral damages in
the amount of P50,000.00
 Violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610
o sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each
of the two cases.
Abello emphasizes that it was impossible for him to have committed these crimes considering
that:
 he is AAAs stepfather who has a healthy sexual relationship with her mother;
 AAA was not alone during these alleged incidents; and
 AAA admitted that she was asleep when these incidents happened making it likely
that she could have just dreamed of them.
The Office of the Solicitor General maintains the correctness of Abello’s conviction on the
basis of AAAs positive and candid narration covering the elements constituting the crimes of
rape by sexual assault and sexual abuse.
Before deciding upon the case, the Court noted the following:
 both the RTC and CA found AAAs testimony to be positive, direct, and
categorical
 RTC found the defense’s version too strained to be believed for being contrary
to human experience
o refused to accept the claim that Abello was prosecuted for simply
because he stepped with his knees on her stepdaughter’s hand.
o Abello could not say why AAA would falsely accuse him.
Court’s consideration of Abello’s defense of denial and his other arguments lead us to reject
them for the following reasons:
1. the issue of his credibility is reduced to a choice between the offended party’s
positive testimony and the denial of the accused
 AAA categorically and unmistakably identified Abello as her rapist and sexual
abuser
 identification was positive because the scene was illuminated by a light coming
from outside the parties house at the time of the incidents
 She also testified that during the rape, she saw Abello suddenly enter the room of
her mother after she yelped in pain when he stepped with his knee on her hand
 Jurisprudence tells us that the mere denial of ones involvement in a crime cannot
take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party
 Abello likewise admitted that in the wee hours of the mornings of June 30, July 2,
and July 8, 1998, he passed by the sala of their house where AAA and her
companions were sleeping
o shows that he had the opportunity and the means to commit these
crimes
2. Court flatly rejects Abello’s argument that his relationship with AAA insulates him
from the crimes charged
 relationship between the offender and the offended party has never been an
obstacle to the commission of the crime against chastity
o this kind and degree of relationship is now quite common in these types
of crimes
o studies show a rising incidence of family and domestic violence
o the male spouse, the father of the victim, or close male relatives, have
been identified as frequent abusers
3. claim that AAA could have just dreamed of the incidents complained of, to be
preposterous
 highly unlikely that a woman in her right mind would expose and declare herself a
victim of rape and sexual abuse
o open herself to the humiliating experience of a public trial
o possible social stigma of being a victim of rape and sexual abuse
 In the normal course, a woman will not expose herself to these risks unless she is
certain of what happened and she seeks to obtain justice against the perpetrator
o AAA filed the criminal charges because she did not know what to do
o reported the incidents to her mother and sister-in-law who thereafter
sought police assistance
  The record also shows that AAA lived a sheltered life cared for by her relatives
because of her polio
o highly unusual for her to have the worldly sophistication to invent or
fabricate the charges she made
 A charge against ones stepfather is unusual in our socio-cultural context because
of the respect we give our elders, and is only understandable if there is a deeply
felt cause for complaint.
 There was also no imputation made at any time in the case that AAA is not normal
or has a strained relationship with her stepfather prior to the acts charged.
ISSUES and RATIO
ISSUE # 1: The court a quo erred in not absolving the accused-appellant of the
crime of violation of paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended – NO
R.A. No. 8353 which took effect on October 22, 1997 introduced into the Philippine legal
system the concept of rape by sexual assault.
 reclassified rape as a crime against persons
 expanded the definition of rape from the traditional concept of a sexual
intercourse committed by a man against an unwilling woman.
The second paragraph of Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended defines rape by sexual assault
as:
 committed by any person who, under any of the circumstance mentioned in
paragraph 1 shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another
persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.
The elements of rape by sexual assault
1. That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2. That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the
following means
a. By inserting his penis into another persons mouth
or anal orifice; or
3. That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of
the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When a woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious
AAAs testimony covers the commission of the sexual assault through the insertion of Abellos
male organ into her mouth
AAA also consistently identified Abello as the perpetrator of the sexual assault.
 satisfy the first and second elements of the rape.
Her testimony that she was roused from sleep with Abello’s male organ inserted in her mouth
 satisfies third element of the crime
Court observed that both the RTC and the CA failed to notice the variance between the
allegations in the Information for rape and that proven at the trial on the mode of committing
the offense.
 The Information alleges force and intimidation as the mode of commission, while
AAA testified during the trial that she was asleep at the time it happened and only
awoke to find Abello’s male organ inside her mouth.
This variance is not fatal to Abello’s conviction
 People v. Corpuz
o variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the
accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was
committed in a different manner than what was alleged
 Abello did not object to the presentation of evidence showing that the
crime charged was committed in a different manner
ISSUE # 2 The court a quo has committed an error in not exculpating the
accused-appellant of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article III of R.A
No. 7610 – NO
Abello was convicted of 2 counts of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No.
7610, which defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness committed against a child:
The essential elements of this provision are:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution
or subjected to other sexual abuse
3. The child whether male or female, is below 18 years of age
Paragraph (h), Section 2 of the IRR of R.A. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as:
 a crime committed through the intentional touching, either directly or
through the clothing of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, among others.
Records show that AAA duly established lascivious conduct when she positively testified that
Abello fondled her breasts on two separate occasions while she slept.
The second element requires that the lascivious conduct be committed on a child who is either
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. This second element requires
evidence proving that:
 AAA was either exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse and
  she is a child as defined under R.A. No. 7610.
Olivarez v. Court of Appeals
 other sexual abuse in the above provision covers not only a child who is
abused for profit, but also one who engages in lascivious conduct through the
coercion or intimidation by an adult.
o In the latter case, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party’s will.
Prosecution failed to present any evidence showing that force or coercion attended Abellos
sexual abuse on AAA
 she was asleep at the time these crimes happened and only awoke when she felt
her breasts being fondled
o she could have not resisted Abello’s advances
 no evidence showing that Abello compelled her, or cowed her into silence to bear
his sexual assault, after being roused from sleep
 no evidence that she had the time to manifest conscious lack of consent or
resistance to Abellos assault.
More importantly, AAA cannot be considered a child under Section
3(a) of R.A. No. 7610
 person below 18 years of age or those over but are unable
to fully take care of themselves or protect
themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition
Definition of child was elaborated by the IRR
 who is below 18 years of age or over said age who, upon evaluation of a
qualified physician, psychologist or psychiatrist, is found to be incapable
of taking care of herself fully because of a physical or mental disability
or condition or of protecting herself from abuse.
Although RTC, the CA and the investigating prosecutor considered AAAs polio as a physical
disability that rendered her incapable of normal function, no evidence was in fact presented
showing the prosecutions compliance with the implementing rules.
 prosecution did not present any evidence, testimonial or documentary, of any
medical evaluation or medical finding from a qualified physician, psychologist or
psychiatrist attesting that AAAs physical condition rendered her incapable of fully
taking care of herself or of protecting herself against sexual abuse.
No evidence has been adduced showing that AAA’s physical disability prevented her from
resisting Abello’s attacks
 only reveals that Abello took advantage of the opportunity presented to him
 supported by the fact that he stopped his sexual assault when AAA started to
awaken
 reasonably deduced from these circumstances that Abello sought to commit the
sexual abuses with impunity
In light of these conclusions, we cannot hold Abello liable under R.A. No. 7610. However, we
still find him liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, as amended.
In Olivarez v CA, we emphasized that the character of the crime is not determined by the
caption or preamble of the information or from the specification of the provision of law alleged
to have been violated
 the crime committed is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and
circumstances in the complaint or information.
Although the two Informations wrongly designated R.A. No. 7610 as the law violated
allegations therein sufficiently constitute acts punishable under Article 336 of the RPC whose
elements are:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness;
2. That the offended party is another person of either sex;
and
3. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age
or is demented
Informations alleged the element of violence and intimidation as the mode of committing the
sexual abuses, contrary to what the prosecution established during the trial that AAA was
asleep on the two occasions when the offenses were committed, the deficiencies in the
allegations will not relieve Abello of liability under the circumstances of this case.
The Penalty
The three Informations all alleged the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship between AAA and
Abello.
 Relationship as an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the RPC, as
amended, and
 an aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity and in rape.
 This modifying circumstance, however, was not duly proven in the present case
due to the prosecutions failure to present the marriage contract between Abello
and AAAs mother.
o If the fact of marriage came out in the evidence at all, it was via an
admission by Abello of his marriage to AAAs mother.
 inconclusive evidence to prove the marriage to AAAs mother
as the marriage contract still remains the best evidence to
prove the fact of marriage.
o This stricter requirement is only proper as relationship is an aggravating
circumstance.
Rape by sexual assault is penalized by
 prision mayor which has a range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate Although not alleged in the Information, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was
penalty shall be within the full range of the penalty that is one degree lower nonetheless proven during the trial when AAA testified that she was sexually abused by Abello
than prision mayor, in this case, prision correccional which has a range of penalty while she was asleep in their house.
from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
 In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum of the Also, Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, recognizes knowledge by the offender of the
indeterminate penalty shall be taken within the medium period of prision mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time
mayor, or 8 and one 1 day to 10 years. of the commission of the crime, as a qualifying circumstance.
 Hence, Abello may be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 6  knowledge by Abello of AAA’s polio was duly proven during the trial
months and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and  but was not alleged in the Information.
1 day to 10 years, as maximum, for the crime of rape.
These aggravating and qualifying circumstances of dwelling and Abello’s knowledge of AAAs
The imposable penalty for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, as amended, is: physical disability may be appreciated in awarding the victim exemplary damages in line with
 prision correccional. our ruling in People v. Catubig where we held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance,
 Under Scale No. 1 of Article 71 of this law, one degree lower from prision whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages.
correccional is arresto mayor which has a range of penalty from 1 month and 1
day to 6 months.
 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate
penalty shall be taken from the full range of arresto mayor.
 Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the case, the maximum of
the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision
correccional or 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.
 Abello may be meted an indeterminate penalty ranging from 1 month and 1 day
to 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1day to 4
years and 2 months of prision correccional, as maximum, for each count of acts
of lasciviousness.

The Civil Liability

A victim of rape by sexual assault

 entitled to an award of P30,000 as civil indemnity and
 P30,000 as moral damages
 Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is
automatically granted in rape cases
 Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of further pleading or proof
o presumed that the victim necessarily suffered injury due to the
odiousness of the crime.

For acts of lasciviousness, AAA is awarded P20,000 as civil indemnity and P30,000 as moral
damages for each count in line with existing jurisprudence.

The Court further awards exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 for the rape through
sexual assault committed upon AAA and P2,000 for each count of acts of lasciviousness.
 Article 2230 of the Civil Code allows an award of exemplary damages when the
crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.