PEOPLE V.

HIPOLITO PASCUA

G.R. Nos. 128159-62

July 14, 2003

FACTS:

The RTC of Pangasinan Branch 38 found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of four counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
each case. .

Private complainants Liza and Anna, both surnamed Paragas, are twins. The
appellant was their neighbor in Calvo, Mangatarem, Pangasinan. Liza and Anna
considered appellant as their grandfather although he was not related to them. On
August 6, 1995, private complainants were playing near the house of the appellant
when the latter called Liza and instructed her to buy juice at the store. Liza obeyed.
After she returned from the store, the appellant ordered Liza to go inside his house
and lie down on the floor. Appellant then removed Liza’s clothes, went on top of
her, inserted his penis into her vagina. Liza tried to scream but appellant
threatened to kill her. Afterwards, the appellant gave Liza P10 and warned her not
to reveal the incident to her mother. The same thing happened on January 27, 1996
when Liza was called by the appellant as she was passing by his house.

Liza’s twin sister, Anna, suffered the same fate at the hands of the appellant.
Sometime in August 1995, while Anna was playing with her cousins, the appellant
called her and asked her to go inside his house. As soon as Anna entered his
house, the appellant closed the door, removed Anna’s clothes, and made her lie
down on the floor. Thereafter, the appellant inserted his penis into Anna’s vagina
and ravished her. Anna felt pain but could not shout as appellant threatened to kill
her. The appellant also warned her not to tell her mother about the incident. The
same thing happened again on January 20, 1996.

At the trial, appellant and his granddaughter, Joy Javier, testified for the defense.
The appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with private complainants but
insisted that Liza and Anna freely consented to the repeated sexual acts in
exchange for money ranging from P5 to P10.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the conviction of the appellant is correct.

RULING:

The Court finds no merit in the appellant’s reasoning. His defense that the victims
consented to his desires is preposterous to be considered. The same is not only
revolting but goes against established norms. No young child in her right mind will
consent to have sexual intercourse with a 65-year-old man, specially one whom she
considers her grandfather. The appellant desperately tries to portray private
complainants as sex-starved maniacs who, at the tender age of 12, persistently
demanded sex with him. Indeed, after admitting that he had carnal knowledge of
private complainants on several occasions, the appellant assumed the burden of
proving his defense by substantial evidence. The record shows that, other than his
self-serving assertions, the appellant had nothing to support his claim that private
complainants were teenagers of loose morals and that the repeated acts of sexual
intercourse were consensual.

When the offended parties are young and immature girls from 12 to 16, as in this case,
courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering
not only their relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which they would
be exposed by court trial if their accusation were not true.The Court entertain no doubt
that Liza and Anna told the truth. Their testimony was clear that they never consented
to the rape. Their declarations during the trial were simple, straightforward and
unflawed by any inconsistency or contradiction. A candid and honest narration by the
victim of how she was abused must be given full faith and credit for they contain
earmarks of credibility.

PEOPLE V. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA

GR NO. 168103

AUGUST 3, 2010

FACTS:

The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC Antipolo City Branch 73,
finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of consummated
rape and one count of attempted rape. The antecedent facts are the following:

AAA was born on July 16, 1981 in XXX, Eastern Samar and was a little over twelve (12)
years old when the incidents allegedly happened. Together with her siblings, BBB and
CCC, AAA lived with her aunt, DDD, and the latter's second husband, appellant. Also
living with them were two (2) of AAA's cousins. During that period, DDD and appellant
were sending AAA, BBB and CCC to school. At the time the incidents took place, DDD
was working overseas. Based on the testimony of AAA, appellant had been kissing her
and touching her private parts since September 1993. She claimed that appellant raped
her several times between September 1993 and January 1994. She narrated that
appellant would usually rape her at night when the other members of the family were
either out of the house or asleep. AAA stated that she resisted the advances of
appellant, but was not successful. Appellant would usually place a bolo beside him
whenever he would rape her. She added that appellant would threaten AAA by telling
her that he would kill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to
school. Around noon of December 20, 1993, appellant followed AAA to the bedroom
after the latter took a bath. Appellant tied her hands with a rope and forcibly inserted
his penis. Thereafter, appellant untied the hands and left. A few moments later,
appellant returned and raped her again. The same incident happened again on January
31, 1994. Afterwards, AAA told her older sister about the repeated deeds of the
appellant. Her sister accompanied AAA to the police station.

In not imposing the penalty of death, the trial court reasoned out that AAA was already
over 12 years old at the time the incidents happened and that although she was below
18 years old, the relationship of AAA and the appellant had not been sufficiently
established as the marriage between AAA's aunt and the appellant was not supported
by any documentary evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is correct due to the
inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA.

RULING:

The Court finds the appeal bereft of any merit. The claim of appellant that he could not
have raped AAA because his wife was still in the country during the alleged period
when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve even the slightest
consideration. It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the
crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of
being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission
of rape. 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.

Nevertheless, the said inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which
do not affect the credibility of AAA nor erase the fact that the latter was raped. The
inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable, since 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 calvary she might even be
struggling to forget.

PEOPLE V. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA

GR NO. 168103

AUGUST 3, 2010

FACTS:

The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC Antipolo City Branch 73,
finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of consummated
rape and one count of attempted rape. The antecedent facts are the following:

AAA was born on July 16, 1981 in XXX, Eastern Samar and was a little over twelve (12)
years old when the incidents allegedly happened. Together with her siblings, BBB and
CCC, AAA lived with her aunt, DDD, and the latter's second husband, appellant. Also
living with them were two (2) of AAA's cousins. During that period, DDD and appellant
were sending AAA, BBB and CCC to school. At the time the incidents took place, DDD
was working overseas. Based on the testimony of AAA, appellant had been kissing her
and touching her private parts since September 1993. She claimed that appellant raped
her several times between September 1993 and January 1994. She narrated that
appellant would usually rape her at night when the other members of the family were
either out of the house or asleep. AAA stated that she resisted the advances of
appellant, but was not successful. Appellant would usually place a bolo beside him
whenever he would rape her. She added that appellant would threaten AAA by telling
her that he would kill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to
school. Around noon of December 20, 1993, appellant followed AAA to the bedroom
after the latter took a bath. Appellant tied her hands with a rope and forcibly inserted
his penis. Thereafter, appellant untied the hands and left. A few moments later,
appellant returned and raped her again. The same incident happened again on January
31, 1994. Afterwards, AAA told her older sister about the repeated deeds of the
appellant. Her sister accompanied AAA to the police station.

In not imposing the penalty of death, the trial court reasoned out that AAA was already
over 12 years old at the time the incidents happened and that although she was below
18 years old, the relationship of AAA and the appellant had not been sufficiently
established as the marriage between AAA's aunt and the appellant was not supported
by any documentary evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is correct due to the
inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA.

RULING:

The Court finds the appeal bereft of any merit. The claim of appellant that he could not
have raped AAA because his wife was still in the country during the alleged period
when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve even the slightest
consideration. It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the
crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of
being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission
of rape. 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.

Nevertheless, the said inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which
do not affect the credibility of AAA nor erase the fact that the latter was raped. The
inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable, since 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 calvary she might even be
struggling to forget.

PEOPLE V. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA

GR NO. 168103

AUGUST 3, 2010
FACTS:

The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC Antipolo City Branch 73,
finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of consummated
rape and one count of attempted rape. The antecedent facts are the following:

AAA was born on July 16, 1981 in XXX, Eastern Samar and was a little over twelve (12)
years old when the incidents allegedly happened. Together with her siblings, BBB and
CCC, AAA lived with her aunt, DDD, and the latter's second husband, appellant. Also
living with them were two (2) of AAA's cousins. During that period, DDD and appellant
were sending AAA, BBB and CCC to school. At the time the incidents took place, DDD
was working overseas. Based on the testimony of AAA, appellant had been kissing her
and touching her private parts since September 1993. She claimed that appellant raped
her several times between September 1993 and January 1994. She narrated that
appellant would usually rape her at night when the other members of the family were
either out of the house or asleep. AAA stated that she resisted the advances of
appellant, but was not successful. Appellant would usually place a bolo beside him
whenever he would rape her. She added that appellant would threaten AAA by telling
her that he would kill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to
school. Around noon of December 20, 1993, appellant followed AAA to the bedroom
after the latter took a bath. Appellant tied her hands with a rope and forcibly inserted
his penis. Thereafter, appellant untied the hands and left. A few moments later,
appellant returned and raped her again. The same incident happened again on January
31, 1994. Afterwards, AAA told her older sister about the repeated deeds of the
appellant. Her sister accompanied AAA to the police station.

In not imposing the penalty of death, the trial court reasoned out that AAA was already
over 12 years old at the time the incidents happened and that although she was below
18 years old, the relationship of AAA and the appellant had not been sufficiently
established as the marriage between AAA's aunt and the appellant was not supported
by any documentary evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is correct due to the
inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA.

RULING:

The Court finds the appeal bereft of any merit. The claim of appellant that he could not
have raped AAA because his wife was still in the country during the alleged period
when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve even the slightest
consideration. It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the
crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of
being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission
of rape. 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.

Nevertheless, the said inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which
do not affect the credibility of AAA nor erase the fact that the latter was raped. The
inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable, since 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 calvary she might even be
struggling to forget.