PEOPLE v. BARRANCO Nature: Criminal case for Rape Ponente: Gancayco, J.

Date: August 31, 1989 DOCTRINE: A child born out of a sin cannot be recognized as a child of a married person. (Hindi maaari na kilalanin ang batang bunga ng kasalanan na anak ng isang may-asawa) FACTS: Rosalia Barranco (19 years old) is the eldest of seven children of Jaime and Aurora Barranco. One Saturday, Rosalia stayed home to watch over their house while her parents and siblings went to the farm. Bartolome Barranco, a married man, is a second cousin of Rosalias father. The distance between his house and that of Rosalias family is approximately only 100 meters. While Rosalia was sleeping, Bartolome went on top of her naked. Bartolome, who was holding a butchers knife, threatened her that if she resisted, he would kill her. He then proceeded to rape her. She did not tell her parents about the incident out of fear that Bartolome would get back at her. On another day, while she was preparing the food for their pigs, Bartolome again tried to rape her. She hit Bartolome in the head with a piece of wood, and as a result, Bartolome ran away. When Rosalias mother arrived home, she saw her crying. Rosalia confessed that Bartolome had raped her. The next day, they went to the police station to report the incident. She underwent a medical examination at the office of the NBI where it was found out that she was pregnant. A complaint for rape was filed against Bartolome in the Municipal Circuit Court. After the trial, the lower court found Bartolome guilty of rape. Bartolome appeals to the decision of the lower court arguing that (1) there are no other witnesses to corroborate the testimony of Rosalia, (2) he was not guilty of rape, (3) he should not be compelled to recognize the child of Rosalia as his own. ISSUES: (1) WON Bartolome is guilty of committing rape against Rosalia RULING: YES. Rosalia was able to present sufficient proof to convict the accused.

Bartolome claims that the testimony of Rosalia is incredible given the inconsistencies in her factual recollection of the incident. However, the Court stated that minor inconsistencies are not enough to throw away the testimony of the victim. Because of the trauma that she experienced, the victim is not expected to remember everything that happened on that unfortunate day. On the other hand, the defense of the accused that he did not force the victim because they already have sexual relations prior to the incident is belied by the findings of the NBI during the medical examination that Rosalia was a virgin before he succeeded in raping her. Also, the accused was not able to prove his claim that Rosalia seduced her aside from the bare testimony of his wife. He did not present any evidence that Rosalia was a woman of ill-repute. Assuming that his claim is true, it would be unbelievable for his wife to acquiesce to such actions considering that Rosalia is close to her. The fact also that Rosalia did not tell her parents immediately after the incident only shows that she was afraid of Bartolome. She only had enough courage to fight back when Bartolome attempted to rape her for the second time. (2) WON the accused can be compelled to recognize that he is the father of Rosalias child RULING: NO. The lower court erred in ordering that the child be acknowledged by Bartolome. A child born out of a sin cannot be recognized as a child of a married person. However, he has the duty to support the child under Article 291 of the Civil Code as amended. He is also ordered to pay damages to Rosalia. NOTES: I had to translate the case in English because it was written in Filipino. I apologize for any error in my translation or interpretation of the original case.