PEOPLE v. OPTANA [2001] way, the child was conceived as a result of the rape between Sep.
was conceived as a result of the rape between Sep. ’93 and Oct. 28,
 Accused-appellant Deolito Optana was charged with 4 informations (for Sep, ‘93;
Oct 28, ‘95; Sep, ‘95; Oct, ‘93) for violation of Sec. 5 of RA 7610 (Special Protection
of Children Against Child Abuse) and 4 informations (also for the same dates) for
rape allegedly committed against the person of his step daughter Maria Rizalina
Onsiano.
 Maria’s father left her mother, Nida Onsiano, even before Maria was born. Her
mother started seeing Deolito Optana and then cohabited with him without the
benefit of marriage. Nida and Optana had 7 children.
 Maria testified that sometime in Sep. 1993, (she was then 11 yrs old&9 months),
while her mom, Nida Onsiano, went out, Optana (Nida’s common-law husband)
called her up to come up to the master bedroom and thereupon she was forced
(slapping her cheeks & threatening to box her ) to undress and was then raped.
When the act was consummated, she was threatened to be killed once she reports
the incident. Maria further testified that since that day, whenever Nida was out,
Optana would rape Maria.
 Though she could no longer remember exactly how many times she was raped, she
particularly remembered that she was last raped on Oct. 28, 1995 in a room where
she & her brothers & sisters slept.
 On Nov. 24, Nida noticed Maria’s tummy was protruding & she asked her sister,
Evelyn Nallos to accompany Maria to the doctor for examination. It was found that
Maria was already 6-7 months pregnant and it was then that Maria revealed that
her stepfather had repeatedly raped her. The Medical Report by Dr. Laila Patricio
revealed her hymen was not intact and that she was indeed 6-7 mos. pregnant.
 A formal complaint was filed on Nov. and by Feb. 23, ’96, she gave birth to a baby
boy, Richard Onsiano. Maria had to be admitted to the Nat’l Center for Mental
Health for being rather suicidal. Her testimony thus had to be postponed.
 Optana denied having raped his stepdaughter and Nida actually corroborated his
testimony averring that Optana could not have raped Maria since her sexual
relationship with him was very satisfactory (bwiset na nanay to! well, apparently it
wasn’t so satisfying!) and that the case was only pursued due to Evelyn’s grudge
against Optana.
 TC found Optana guilty of the rape committed during Sep. ’93 (1st rape incident)
and of Child Prostitution during Oct. 28, 95 (last rape incident). He was acquitted
for the rest of the charges for insufficiency of evidence.
Issue: WON Optana was rightfully convicted by the TC
 YES. The Court agreed with the TC’s decision.
 Since the TC found Maria’s testimony to be credible and trustworthy, it was more
than sufficient to sustain the accused-appellant’s conviction. Further, it was
corroborated by Dr. Laila Patricio.
 In a rape committed by a father against the daughter, the former’s moral
ascendancy & influence over the latter substitutes for violence & intimidation. Such
was the case with Maria who was so traumatized she had to be committed to the
Nat’l Center for Mental Health. Such was also corroborated by psychiatrist, DR.
Dijamco.
 Optana alleged that it was quite impossible for him to rape her in broad daylight w/
7 kids around. But the SC held that rape can be committed even where people
congregate as Lust is no respecter of time or place.
 Alleged ill motive of Evelyn was not considered as ill motive is inconsequential in a
case where there are affirmative, nay, categorical declarations toward Optana’s
accountability for the offense.
 Delay in reporting the crime was similarly understandable, Optana having
threatened Maria’s life if she squeals.
 Optana’s claims that it was medically impossible to have a 4 months premature
birth, supposing the she was indeed raped on Oct. 28, 1995 and even more
impossible if the act was committed on Sep. ’93 cannot lie for Maria testified that
she was raped several times but could not remember the exact dates. Put another
’95.
 The SC also sustained the TC correction of the erroneous filing of the informations
where the accused was charged w/ 2 offenses—rape and Child prostitution—for the
same act committed on the same date by the accused on the same offended party.
Such is erroneous and illegal, except where the law itself so allows. But Sec. 5(b),
R.A. 7610 does not so allow. It even provides that if the child is below 12, the
accused must be prosecuted under Art. 335 of the RPC. If she’s above 12, the
accused must be prosecuted under RA 7610 for “child-abuse”
 Thus, the TC correctly convicted Optana for rape under Art. 335, RPC for the first
incident of rape (Sep, ’93) as she was then below 12.
 As for the incident on Oct. 28, ’95, all that Maria was able to say was that she was
molested. Whether there was force & intimidation to qualify this incident as rape
was not proven—although that she was sexually abused by Optana then is
undisputed. Thus, Optana was correctly convicted for violation of Sec. 5(b), R.A.
7610 (Child Abuse Law) for the incident on Oct. 28.
 Elements of the offense under Sec. 5(b) [People v. Larin]
o Accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
o Said act is performed with a child (persons below 18 or those unable to fully
take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination due to their age or mental disability or condition)
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuses
o Child, whether male or female, is below 18 yrs of age.
Under the law, “exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuses”
contemplates not only when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct for money, profit, or any other consideration (w/c is
essentially child prostitution) but also when it is done under the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
 Thus, Optana is certainly guilty for sexual abuse committed on his stepdaughter,
using his moral ascendancy in intimidating her to engage in sexual intercourse with
him.
Held: TC decision affirmed with modification as to damages (exemplary damages deleted
for lack of legal basis, moral damages reduced from P100K to P50K)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. Mariano FONTANILLA,
defendant-appellant [1968]
 Sept. 1960: Fe Castro, 15-yr old virgin, began working as a helper in the house of
Fontanilla & his 2nd wife, Magdalena Copio, sister of Castro’s mom.
 From the time she arrived until shortly before Christmas of 1960, Fontanilla
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Castro repeatedly. Victim can’t recall how
many times this happened. Castro testified that this began a week after she arrived
when Fontanilla went inside her room. She claimed that although the door was
locked w/a wooden bar, it can be opened when pushed from the outside. According
to Castro, Fontanilla made amorous overtures & advances toward her. He gave her
money w/promise to abandon his wife to live w/her. Castro further testified that she
was induced by promises of marriage & she was frightened by his acts of
intimidation. These incidents happened during the day when her aunt was away and
at night when her aunt’s asleep. It ended when her aunt caught them in the act on
the kitchen floor. Castro returned to her parents the following day.
 Fontanilla was charged w/qualified seduction.
 Fontanilla’s defense:
1. Castro was treated like their own child.
2. He denied her accusations claiming that at night, her room was locked while
during the day he was out in the farm.
 3. His sexual capabilities had waned since he was old already at 52 yrs old. He
further claimed that he only made love to his wife once a week.
4. Case was filed upon the malevolent instigation of Avelino Gapasin, Castro’s
uncle who had strong influence over her.
5. Castro was envious of Fontanilla’s kids of the 1 st marriage who received some
salary from their employment.
 Indirectly corroborated by San Juan La Union Mayor Aquino who claimed that he
tried settling the case amicably proposing that Fontanilla pay P50 w/c was due to
Castro as her share in the cultivation of tobacco but Gapasin refused saying that P2k
should be paid for the honor destroyed.
 Copio corroborated her husband’s statement saying that they only had intercourse
once a week, that there was no unusual incident/sexual relation between her
husband & her niece and that her husband slept w/her in the same bed every night.
 Municipal court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON the lower court had jurisdiction over the case - YES
 Fontanilla claims that the crime of qualified seduction is exclusively w/in the original
jurisdiction of the CFI.
 Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. If there had been jurisdictional amendments after the
case has been filed, such would be immaterial. During the time the action was
instituted, the statute in force was:
a. RA 296, Sec. 87 (c), Par. 3 as amended by RA 2613 w/c states that judges of
Municipal Courts shall have like jurisdiction as the CFI to try parties charged
w/an offense committed w/in the province in w/c the penalty provided by law
does not exceed prision correccional or fine not exceeding P3k or both.
b. Qualified seduction is punishable by prision correccional in its min & med
periods thus, during the time this case was filed, it was still w/in the Municipal
Court’s jurisdiction.
 No merit either in Fontanilla’s claim that the imposition of civil liabilities
(indemnification, acknowledgement & support of offspring, etc.) will increase the
punishment and thus going beyond the P3k maximum fine limit set by the law.
However, it must be noted that the concurrence of jurisdiction is based upon the
duration of the imprisonment and/or the amount of the fine imposable, irrespective
of the civil incidents or obligations w/c may attach to the offense charged. An
indemnification or a reparation or a restitution is merely an incident of the crime.
2. WON qualified seduction was proven beyond reasonable doubt. – YES
 Secrecy & privacy in
crimes against chastity Viada’s definitions:
coupled w/the lack or Abduction – taking away of a woman from her house or the place where she may be for the purpose of carrying her to another place with intent to marry or to corrupt her
absence of witnesses Abduction through violence – (defined by Art 342 of the RPC) has specific elements, which includes the essential element of unchaste designs (or the qualifying circumstance of lewd intention)
leaves the court w/no
choice but to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complaining woman whose
testimonial & personal credibility assumes pivotal importance. In this case, Castro’s
testimony, in direct as well as in cross-examination, should be given credence. Court
finds Castro’s testimony frank & revealing.
 Convincing proof of the first intercourse would suffice to affirm conviction w/o need
to prove subsequent instances.
 Allegations that Castro’s envious of Fontanilla’s children were unsubstantiated.
 Mayor Aquino’s testimony that Gapasin refused to receive the P50 proposed
payment does not prove that Gapasin induced Castro to denounce Fontanilla in court.
He was just trying to protect the interest of his niece. P50 is so meager a
compensation for the irredeemable loss of Castro’s virginity. Also, it was proven that
Castro already went to the Fiscal’s office to file charges prior to the alleged
settlement arranged by Aquino. This shows that the case was not filed due to the
failure in the compromise.
 Fontanilla claims that Castro’s testimony was hazy & self-contradictory because she
agreed to continue the illicit affair even after it was evident that he won’t fulfill his
promise to marry her. However, Castro was able to explain that she was beginning to
like Fontanilla & enjoy the sexual intercourse.
 Accused also claims that he has a harmonious & cordial relationship w/his wife and
that if his wife indeed discover that something was going on between him & Castro,
her natural reaction would have been to lay hands on both of them. But the court
points out that women react differently. Perhaps she knew that her husband was at
fault.
 Inconsistencies in Castro’s testimony can be attributed to her minority, lack of
education, perceptibly low intelligence & partiality to her cause. In general, court
finds her credible & convincing.
 NO merit in Fontanilla’s allegation re the delayed filing of the case. It’s
understandable considering that she was suing her uncle in this case. Besides, it was
Aquino’s attempt at an amicable settlement w/c delayed filing of the case.
 With regard to the other defenses set by Fontanilla: At night, it was possible to open
Castro’s room even it was locked w/a wooden bar as Castro testified. During day
time, there were times when Fontanilla would be home earlier than his wife. In
saying that they had intercourse day & night, Castro didn’t mean that they had
intercourse once during the day and once at night all happening in one day. She
simply meant that sometimes they did it at night while on other days, they did it
during daytime. Besides, he has to prove his alleged weakening potency.
 Medico-legal findings show incomplete healed lacerations w/c could have been
caused by injuries w/c took place 6 mos, more or less, prior to the date of the
examination. There being no evidence that she was unchaste prior to her living w/the
Fontanilla spouses, the presumption of her virginity remains.
3. WON deceit needs to be proven to qualify the crime. – NO.
 Deceit is essential in ordinary/simple seduction but it doesn’t need to be proved or
established in qualified seduction. It’s replaced by abuse of confidence.
 US vs. Ariante: When the offender is a public officer, priest/minister, servant,
domestic, tutor, teacher or under any title is in charge of the education or keeping of
the offended woman, the act is punishable although fraud/deceit may not have been
used/proven.
 US v. Santiago: Even when carnal knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin
it still constitutes qualified seduction..taking into account the abuse of confidence on
the part of the agent, an abuse of confidence w/c implies deceit or fraud.
Holding: Affirmed w/modification: moral damages P2,500 to the offended party & her
parents.
PEOPLE v. CRISOSTOMO
FACTS:
 Pedro Crisostomo had been courting Macaria Gabriel (30 years old at the time of the
incident) for 2 to 3 years to no avail
 Macaria even refused his proposal marriage because she did not like him
 One day, while Macaria was walking with her aunt Candida Acuña in the direction of
their houses from that of Gregoria Acuña, Pedro and his companions met them on
the way and dragged Macaria along and took her against her will to a rice field
 Macaria cried and threw insults at the defendants but could not prevent them from
taking her away
 While being dragged away, she also alleged that Pedro kissed her against her will,
but she became nauseated (“seasick” was the term used) and lost consciousness
 While Macaria was being dragged away, some of the accused held her aunt down so
that she could not help Macaria
 However, when Gregoria Acuña heard Candida’s cries for help, she ran towards her
and proceeded to hit those who were holding Candida with a club she was carrying
 Once she was freed, Candida went to Macaria’s house and told the latter’s brother,
Constantino, about the abduction. Constantino ran after and overtook them,
prompting the defendants to release Macaria
 Defendants first tried to contend that what happened was not an abduction but a
part of Pedro and Macaria’s plan to elope. But the Court did not believe such
contention because:
1. “Earmarks of veracity” in the testimony of the complainants
2. A woman of Macaria’s age is presumed to possess a serene judgment, and would
have been more careful in planning and executing such plan of elopement than a
young, impulsive woman. She would not have done it
 In the daytime
 In the company of her aunt
 While her aunt was entering the house of Gregoria Acuña in order to speak
to the latter for some minutes
3. Pedro spontaneously admitted to Lt. Sotto of the Constabulary that he thought it
was a good idea to abduct Macaria because she had firmly turned down his
marriage proposal (huh?), and that he considered what he did as an offense to
Macaria and her family
 Thus, the Court considered it established that Macaria was taken by force
 However, before the accused could be held responsible for abduction through
violence, the other essential element (unchaste design) must also be proven to
exist
ISSUE: WON element of unchaste design attended the commission of the crime
so as to qualify the offense as abduction through violence.
HELD: NO. Although it is not necessary to show that unchaste designs were
carried into effect, it is still required that the existence of such
designs be established. In this case, the Court held that there
were no such designs proven.
1. Offender’s intent was to convince Macaria to marry him
 Violent taking of a woman is not incompatible with the intention to marry
 The intent to marry does not necessarily constitute unchaste design
 Although there exists a general proposition that states that intention to marry
may sometimes constitute unchaste designs, this proposition contemplates a
case where the intent to marry is accompanied by circumstances that may
vitiate such an intention (e.g. abduction of a minor who cannot legally consent
to marriage)
 In the present case, where both the offender and the offended party are of age
and have no impediment to marry, the intent to marry does not automatically
constitute unchaste design
2. There are no other proofs of unchaste design
 Macaria’s allegation of kissing was held not to be sufficiently proven because, as
she herself stated, she was seasick at that time and even lost consciousness.
The Court gave the defendant (who denies the kissing) the benefit of the doubt
by supposing that what Macaria thought was kissing was “merely accidental
collisions of heads or faces.”
 Macaria was under their control/custody for a period of time, the Court held that
if Pedro had unchaste designs he would have taken greater advantage of her
during that time, yet none was alleged nor proven (aside from the kissing)
HOLDING: Defendants are only guilty of being principals and accomplices (in the case of
those who held Candida) in the crime of illegal detention
 Conviction for this different offense poses no problem because the information
alleges the “deprivation of the liberty” of the complainant, which is the manner by
which illegal detention is committed
 They cannot be convicted of attempted coercion because it is not proven that the
defendants did in fact try to compel Macaria to marry Pedro (Court said that maybe
he wasn’t going to force Macaria, but only wanted to get her away from her relatives
in the hope that doing so might change her mind). Their external acts did not
directly, rationally and necessarily tend towards coercion
DISSENTING OPINION (Araullio, CJ, Avanceña and Villamor, JJ)
 Said that the allegation of kissing should not have been discounted
 Also, what other intent could there have been when the accused tried to take Macaria
to a place where they might be alone and away from the reach of her family, other
than to have her at the complete and absolute disposal of Pedro
 How could the Court accept the alleged intent to marry when the means employed
by the accused (i.e. taking by force in a relatively uninhabited place, while all of
them are armed with bolos) tended to produce the opposite result by making the
woman hate and despise him rather than accept and love him
 If he began kissing her while there were still other people around (his companions),
what more would he have done once he had her to himself in the rice field
 All these, the dissenters believe, constitute sufficient grounds to reveal an
unchaste design
 US v. Ramirez: In a criminal action for abduction, in order to demonstrate the
presence of lewd designs, actual illicit criminal relations with the person abducted
need not be shown.
 People v. Marshall: The intent to seduce the girl is sufficient. The evil purpose need
not be established by positive evidence, but may be inferred from acts or conduct
proven
 They also said that the present case is substantially the same as US v. Ramirez,
except that in the latter, the girl was abducted at nighttime. But they insisted that
this is of no importance because, here, the crime was committed in a place that is
almost uninhabited, which is equivalent to having performed it at nighttime. (almost
uninhabited: the incident took place 100m away from the house they came from,
and where there was only one other house)
PEOPLE v. JOSE
Appeal from and automatic revue of a decision of the CoFI of Rizal
Facts
 June 26, 1967 – Magdalena de la Riva was abducted outside her own by Jaime
Jose, Edgardo Aquino, Basilio Pineda and Rogelio Canal. They brought Maggie to
Swanky Hotel. Jose, Aquino, Pineda and Canal took turns raping Maggie.
 They decided to leave her on a spot in front of the Free Press Building not far
from Epifanio de los Santos Avenue near Channel 5 to make it appear, according
to them, that the complainant had just come from the studio.
 They threatened that she would be doused with acid if she would inform anyone
of the incident.
  When she was inside the cab and alone with the driver, Miguel F. Campos, she
broke down and cried. She kept asking the driver if a car was following them;
and each time the driver answered her in the negative
 When she reached home she informed her mother of the incident
 Appellant Canal and Pineda executed swore to separate statements on the day
of their arrest
1. Cañal confirmed the information previously given by Jose that the
four of them waited for Miss De la Riva to come down from the ABS
Studio, and that they had planned to abduct and rape her. Appellant
Cañal admitted that all four of them participated in the commission of
the crime, but he would make it appear that insofar as he was
concerned the complainant yielded her body to him on condition that
he would release her
2. Pineda executed a statement stating that he and his other three
companions wept to the ABS Studio, and that, on learning that Miss
De la Riva was there, they made plans to wait for her and to follow
her. He admitted that his group followed her car and snatched her
and took her to the Swanky Hotel. He would make it appear, however,
that the complainant voluntarily acceded to having sexual intercourse
with him.
 Jose, Aquino, Canal pleaded not guilty while Pineda pleaded guilty.
Issues
1. WON the accused were motivated by lewd designs. YES
 Jose, Aquino and Cañal deny having had anything to do with the abduction of
Miss De la Riva. They point to Pineda (who entered a plea of guilty) as the sole
author thereof, but they generously contend that even as to him the act was
purged at any taint of criminality by the complainant's subsequent consent to
perform a striptease show for a fee, a circumstance which, it is claimed,
negated the existence of the element of lewd design.
 This testimony of Ms. De la Riva, whose evidentiary weight has not in the least
been overthrown by the defense, more than suffices to establish the crimes
charged in the amended complaint. The claims of the accused that they were
not motivated by lewd designs must be rejected as absolutely without factual
basis.
2. WON the accused rape Ms. de la Riva. YES
 Jose, Aquino and Canal contend that the absence of semen in the complainant's
vagina disproves the fact of rape.
 Dr. Brion stated that semen is not usually found in the vagina after three days
from the last intercourse, especially if the subject has douched herself within
that period
 The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the
important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but penetration.
 When the victim got home she immediately told her mother that the four raped
her. The statement was made by the complainant to her mother who, in cases
of this nature was the most logical person in whom a daughter would confide
the truth.
3. WON the extrajudicial statements is admissible. YES
 The accused contends that secured from them by force and intimidation, and
that the incriminating details therein were supplied by the police investigators.
 The statements were given in the presence of several people and subscribed
and sworn to before the City Fiscal of Quezon City, to whom neither of the
aforesaid appellants intimated the use of inordinate methods by the police. They
are replete with details which could hardly be known to the police; and although
it is suggested that the authorities could have secured such details from their
various informers, no evidence at all was presented to establish the truth of
such allegation.
 Even disregarding the in-custody statements of Jose and Canal, We find that the
mass of evidence for the prosecution on record will suffice to secure the
conviction of the two.
4. WON there was a mistrial for Pineda. NO
 Pineda contends that there was a mistrial resulting in gross miscarriage of
justice. He contends that because the charge against him and his co-appellants
is a capital offense and the amended complaint cited aggravating
circumstances, which, if proved, would raise the penalty to death, it was the
duty of the court to insist on his presence during all stages of the trial.
 The court held that plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes
an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the
aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is capital, for the
admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances
qualifying and/or aggravating the crime it was not incumbent upon the trial
court to receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in court. It
would be different had appellant Pineda requested the court to allow him to
prove mitigating circumstances, for then it would be the better part of discretion
on the part of the trial court to grant his request.
5. WON the enormous publicity of the case affected the decision of the trial court.
NO
 The appellants took notice of the enormous publicity that attended the case
from the start of investigation to the trial.
 Jose himself admits in his brief that the Trial Judge "had not been influenced by
adverse and unfair comments of the press, unmindful of the rights of the
accused to a presumption of innocence and to fair trial."
6. WON aggravating circumstances were present. YES
 Nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate
the commission of these crimes
 Abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four
appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf. People vs. De Guzman, et al., 51
Phil., 105, 113)
 Ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them
her complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought
about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating
 use of a motor vehicle.
7. WON the imposition of four death penalty is valid. YES
 The Supreme Court held that in view of the existence of conspiracy among the
accused and of its finding regards the nature and number of crimes committed,
as well as the presence of aggravating circumstances, four death penalties can
be imposed.
PEOPLE v. GODINES
Facts:
♦ March 17, 1988 – Esther Ancajas was awakened by a commotion emanating
from an adjacent room occupied by Vilaski and his wife Milagros. Godines
hacked Milagros while his companion, Danny Moreno, stood by the window to
serve as a lookout person. Ancajas tried to escape from the house with her
small child. Godines and Moreno saw her and grabbed her. The two men
dragged her and forcibly brought her to a nearby vacant lot. Godines had a
pistol while Moreno was armed with a knife. The accused fondled her private
parts and they also took turns in having carnal knowledge of Ancajas. Accused
warned her not to report the incident to the authorities if she valued her life.
♦ Deliarte (municipal health officer) testified than on account of the medical
examination, it is possible that Ancajas was raped.
 ♦ Godines asserted that he could not have committed the crime because he had
to stay in the house of Felomino Moreno to recuperate from his illness and that
he was able to go home the next day. House of Felomino was 2 km away fro
the house of Vilaksi.
♦ Danny Moreno maintained that he was in the house of Umpad which is abot 3
km away from the house of Vilaksi.
♦ Trial court convicted the accused of rape and sentenced them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The crime of forcible abduction was absorbed by
the crime of rape.

Issue: WON the trial court erred in finding the accussed guilty of rape? NO

Ratio:
♦ Accused contends that there are no conclusive medical finding that the
complainant had indeed been raped. The court held that a medical examination
is not an indispensable element in a prosecution of rape. Evidence shows that
Ancajas suffered abrasions on her body thereby confirming that she had been
physically violated by the use of force.
♦ Ancajas categorically identified her assailants and she had no motive to conjure
up a serious charge against them. The decisive factor in this case is the
positive identification of the appellants as the perpetrator of the rape.
♦ The court also stated that it is very difficult to believe that a woman would be
willing to undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience and scandal of a public
prosecution for rape, as well as an examination of the private parts of her
anatomy, if her intention is not to bring her rapists to justice.
♦ The defense of alibi is of no value. The distance between the alleged
whereabouts of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime and the
scene of the crime itself may be easily negotiated by ordinary means.
♦ Trial court correctly held that forcible abduction is absorbed in the
crime of rape if the main objective of the accused is to rape the victim.
♦ Accused are charged with conspiring and confederating with each other in the
commission of the offense. Two rapes were committed by the accused.
Conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. The accused failed to object to the
information filed and the evidence presented against them. The court may
convuct them of as many offense as has been charged and proven and may
impose on them the penalty for the offenses committed.

Each of the appellant is guilty as principal of two rapes. Penalty life imprisonment

PEREZ v. CA
 PEOPLE v. NARDO
Facts
February 24, 1996, around noon, Lorielyn was in their house located in Barangay 3,
Camalig, Albay, together with her father, accused- appellant Alfredo Nardo, two younger
brothers, Leonel and Louie, and maternal grandfather, Vicente Remot.
After lunch, her grandfather left for work and her father told her brothers, Leonel and
Louie, to go out.
Her father then ordered her to get his cigarettes from the bedroom. Her father followed
her inside, and embraced Lorielyn from behind and began mashing her breasts. She
pleaded, "Papa, please stop it. Have mercy. " He undressed her and pushed her to the
bed. Then, he lay on top of her and had sexual intercourse with her(already crying). He
kissed her from the neck down. She tried to free herself but Alfredo took hold of a knife
from a nearby cabinet and pointed it at her right ear, threatening to kill the whole family if
she blabs, then he left.
Lorielyn’s mother, Elizabeth was washing clothes about five houses away. She returned
at 3pm. She asked why Lorielyn was crying while washing dishes and got no answer from
the latter.
March 19, Lorie was washing clothes when her father whispered "We will play tonight
near the river “. Understanding that this meant sex, she finished her work and left for her
aunt’s(Carol Navera) house in another baranggay. When asked to go home at 5pm, she
decided to stay, afraid of her father.
The next day, Leonel was sent by her father to fetch her, she still stayed. But when
asked by her aunt why, she only answered that she had problems. The following day, it
was her mother who fetched her, Lorie told her she didn’t want to go home asking,
"Mama, do you want me to become pregnant in that house? " Her mom asked, "Who will
impregnate you there? " Lorielyn replied, "Your husband.” Her mother retorted that
Alfredo could not do that to her, then left. Lorie stayed until March 22, and Carol once
again asked her problem, this time she told her aunt.
Carol reported to the police, and later with them, took Lorie to the station for blotter.
The police brought her to the Mun. Health Office of Camalig, where the officer Dr. Melvyn
F . Orbe examined her. From there, they went to the MTC and filed a complaint for rape.
May 29, 1996, the Information charges: at Feb 24, around 1:30pm, Lorie’s father with
lewd and unchaste design, by means of violence, force and intimidation, armed with a
knife……have carnal knowledge with her, she was 14yo. Her father pleaded not guilty at
the arraignment.
Prosecution testimonies
Dr. Orbe testified his pelvic examinations of Lorie, stating that it is possible that she has
sex. (whitish yellow discharge, irritation lateral aspect of the posterior vulva at 3 o ' clock
and healed hymenal laceration)
Carol corroborated the story above.
Ma. Francia Aguilar, officer of the DSWD, testified that in the evening of March 22, 1996,
she responded to a report of a rape incident. She interviewed Lorie and her mom in the
house of another social worker, endorsing Lorie to got to the DSWD center for girls to
undergo therapy.
SPO3 Jose Nuylan testified that he investigated the rape incident and took the
statement of Lorielyn.
Elizabeth(mom) testified that there was no legal marriage only a common law one, and
that they have 7 children, Lorie is the eldest, born Sept. 11, 1981 presenting only a
baptismal record as her birth certificate was burned.
DEFENSE TESTIMONIES
Atty. Santer G. Gonzales, the employer of accused-appellant, testified that on Feb. 24
Alfredo Vicente and Alfredo went to work at 8am. Since it rained and they can’t farm, only
Vicente went home. He and accused drank gin with a few of Gonzales’ friends ‘til
afternoon(also with cigs and guitar playing). Accused went home at 4pm, the distance
from his house is 400 to 500 meters can be reached in 15 minutes. He further lambasted
the character of Lorie, saying that she is capable of lying. Once, she asked for her
grandpa’s daily salary(P50), she only remitted P35 to her mom, prompting the latter to
ask him. Later Lorie’s sis, said that Lorie spent P15 on snacks.
Vicente Remot, accused-appellant's father-in-law, corroborated Atty. Gonzales'
testimony, saying that at 1pm, he and his grandkids(w/Lorie) were watching TV and he
never left the house because it was raining.
Elizabeth also testified that she was watching TV on Feb. 24 with her father and
children, namely, Lorielyn, Lewcherd, Lailani, Leonel, Louie Boy and Leo Boy, all of them
home because it was a Saturday. She claimed that Lorielyn filed the complaint for rape
against her father because he was very strict with her. She learned from Lorielyn's best
friend that she had a problem with her boyfriend, a certain Erwin Loreno. At one time,
Lorielyn asked permission to attend a holy retreat, but Elizabeth found out from the
school that there was no such retreat. Lorielyn lied on another occasion, when she told
Mrs. Bonifacia "Paz" Nieva that her grandfather was sick so she can borrow money.
Mrs. Bonifacia Nieva (classmate’s mom) corroborated the story above.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONIES
Lorie spoke in the court denying the story of Gonzales and alleged boyfriend but claimed
that it was her father who asked her to get money from Mrs. Nieva. When the judge
wondered aloud why her mom was washing clothes in the afternoon that day(supposedly
morning), she said it was because her mom wasn’t able to finish it earlier.
Carolina Nieva(classmate) and Elizabeth Nardo were testified in sum that Lorielyn had a
boyfriend.
Accused-appellant was presented as the last witness. He denied Lorie’s charges and
said that she filed it out of spite when he got mad at her for going around with a boy and
wouldn’t allow her to go out
March 3, 1998, RTC decided Alfredo guilty of rape, penalty of death but for
humanitarian reasons recommends only RP, with moral damages of P50k.
Issues
WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING EVIDENCE AND GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM LORIELYN AND DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
DEFENSE. NO
Atty. Gonzales was accused’s employer and therefore was likely to testify in his favor
and maybe he was too drunk to notice Alfredo leaving the farm. As to his being a lawyer
and should be heard, the court said that when he witnessed for accused, he was in his
ordinary person capacity.
As to the contention that it was doubtful why Lorie continued her chores despite of the
situation, the court held that the defense concluded this form leading questions, instead
court relied on social worker’s observation of ”She also appears to be very sad and
have been staring blankly.” That meant she was affected.
As to the contention that Lorie was an incorrigible liar , Rule 130, Section 34, of the
Rules of Court provides that: “Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did nor did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,
plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. “ Even if lying is a habit,
this is not so petty and inconsequential to accuse one’s father of rape.
As against the positive and categorical testimony of Lorielyn, accused-appellant can
only proffer the defense of alibi, which is not even physically impossible to overcome at
that time. The minor inconsistencies assigned may not even weaken credibility
but help to strengthen her credibility as they are badges of truth rather than
indicia of memorized falsehood
As to the contention that the defense of letters1 Lorie sent to the defense lawyer after
the trial saying she wants her father out, the court held that the first letters didn’t
1
There were several letters, this one was one of the last with Alfredo’s innocence proclaimed.
“Ako po muli si Lorielyn Nardo na anak ni Alfredo Nardo na nakabinbin sa NBP Dorm-I-D
Muntinlupa. Kahit hindi po natupad ang hinihiling kong sana’y makalaya ang aking ama noong
nakaraang Disyembre ay patuloy ko pa rin pong inaasahan at hinihiling ang inyong tulong na sana
po ay makalaya na ang aking ama. Patuloy pong nangingibabaw ang aking konsensiya dahil sa
proclaim Alfredo’s innocence just Lorie’s desire that he be free o that her family can once the increased amount of not less than P75,000.00. This is not only a reaction to the
more be happy. Even if the last two submitted did, Lorie didn’t swear and subscribe to it. apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but
Anyway, recantations are frowned upon by courts because they are themselves also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes
recantable and easily obtained through money, fraud and intimidation. It doesn’t against chastity.
necessarily negate earlier declarations especially made after conviction. Moreover, any
recantation or affidavit of desistance, by itself, even when construed as a pardon Judgment affirmed with additional P75,000 indemnity.
in the so-called "private crimes," is not a ground for the dismissal of the
criminal case once the action has been instituted, it must be prior. This case In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the
happened before the R.A. 8353, The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which reclassified Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let certified true copies thereof, as well
rape as a crime against persons. (I am not sure but saying that before the RA, a as the records of this case, be forwarded without delay to the office of the President for
personal pardon is sufficient?) possible exercise of the clemency or pardoning power.
The trial court is better equipped to push out the truth and facts, as the litigants are
questioned. Court finds no error judging form evidence and Lorie’s statement to be
sufficient to establish guilt, withstanding all the rigors of the case, maintaining her story
even after seeing her father and him being incarcerated.
It is settled that a person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the
testimony of the victim if the trial court finds said testimony to credible, natural,
convincing, and consistent with human nature and the course of things. Well-
settled is the rule that women wouldn’t subject themselves to the defaming
examinations and public trial if it weren’t true. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.

WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO RECITE THE REASONS WHY IT WAS
RECOMMENDING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY FOR THE ACCUSED.
The court acceded that the commutation of sentence is a prerogative of the Chief
Executive, Solicitor general right in saying it was a humanitarian reason of the court. They
didn’t outright say that the recommendation was an error.

WON THE JUDGMENT WAS CORRECT. YES but they forgot the indemnity award.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim
is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
Since there was a concurrence in 2 qualifying circumstances, minority and relationship
and it is properly pleaded in the indictment(information) and properly proven in the
trial(Elizabeth’s testimonies) increasing the rape to one degree to death. Even if 4
justices maintain death to be unconsti, they must accede to the ruling of the majority that
it is constitutional.
The award of P50,000.00 for moral damages which is consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence. No proof is required to substantiate the award of moral damages in rape
cases allegata et probata in civil procedure and for essentially civil cases should be
dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape with the civil aspect included therein,
since no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made.Ppl v
Prades
Additional award of P75,000 is given because in People v Victor. The Court believes
that, the jurisprudential path on the civil aspect should follow the same increasing
penalties the legislation allowed the crime of rape. Hence if the crime of rape is
committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death
penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity for the victim shall be in

aking ginawa, umaasa po ako na sana ay lalo pang mapadali ang paglabas niya sa loob ng
kulungan, maniwala po kayo wala siyang kasalanan. Attorney, alam ko po na ginagawa niyo (po)
ang lahat kaya't ngayon pa lang po ay nagpapasalamat ako sa inyo at patuloy na umaasa ng
inyong tulong at sana’y maunawaan niyo ako.”